More than 70 countries make being gay a crime

People are being killed for their sexual orientation, despite progress made by some nations, including Britain, to eliminate prejudice

By Emily Dugan

Sunday, 1 August 2010

Gay asylum-seeker John Bosco Nyombi, who now has leave to remain in the UK, was beaten and bundled on to a plane to Kampala by security staff working for the Home Office in 2008

John Lawrence

Gay asylum-seeker John Bosco Nyombi, who now has leave to remain in the UK, was beaten and bundled on to a plane to Kampala by security staff working for the Home Office in 2008

Acomprehensive study of global lesbian, bisexual and gay rights, seen by The Independent on Sunday, reveals the brutal – and, in many instances, fatal – price people pay around the globe for their sexuality. The research, which was conducted by the charity network the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), shows that 76 countries still prosecute people on the grounds of their sexual orientation – seven of which punish same-sex acts with death.

On a global scale, the nations doing something positive for gay rights are dwarfed by those behaving negatively. While 75 countries will imprison you if you are gay, only 53 have anti-discrimination laws that apply to sexuality. Only 26 countries recognise same-sex unions.

In the 10 years since the IoS published its first Pink List, Britain has made impressive strides towards sexual equality. In a single decade of progress, gay people have the right to adopt children, an equal age of consent, legislation to protect them from discrimination and can even tie the knot in civil ceremonies.

Related articles

But homophobia remains a scar on Britain's social landscape. Around the world, hundreds of people are killed every year just for being gay. Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the UK lesbian gay and bisexual rights organisation Stonewall, said: "We are mindful that however remarkable the progress we might be making in Britain is, there are countries around the world where people still live in fear of their lives just because of the way they were born. Helping to support them sensitively is a critical obligation of anyone who cares about human rights in the wider world."

The picture in many other parts of the world may make Britain look comparatively welcoming, especially on a day when we celebrate 100 influential figures who are open about their sexuality. But as the Prime Minister, David Cameron, writes today on page 39, the Pink List also reminds the UK not to sit on its laurels.

"As well as being a celebration, the Pink List is a challenge and a reminder that we must go further," he said. "Yes, the UK is a world leader for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality, but we cannot be complacent. As long as there are people out there feeling marginalised or threatened, we must continue to tackle prejudice."

The broadcaster Clare Balding, who last week was dismissed by the Sunday Times writer A A Gill as a "dyke on a bike", writes in today's paper that being gay in Britain "is still not plain sailing". She was told in a letter from The Sunday Times that the homophobic piece was equivalent to the criticism Jeremy Clarkson gets about his dress sense.

Mr Summerskill added that the key is to challenge prejudice. "People are still being murdered for their sexuality on the streets of London, which is meant to be the most progressive city in the country. When Jeremy Clarkson or Chris Moyles say 'What are you complaining about?', the answer is, 'Why don't you try walking down the high street holding hands with another man?'"

Social pressure to be "straight" in Britain has yet to be eliminated. When the X Factor winner Joe McElderry, 19, came out as gay yesterday, it was after previously feeling unable to admit his sexuality. Even when someone hacked into his Twitter account to "out" him last month, he still insisted he was straight. According to Stonewall, almost two-thirds of young lesbian, gay and bisexual people experience homophobic bullying in Britain's schools.

ILGA's study of global gay rights shows that, elsewhere, admitting to being gay is still a matter of life and death. In much of Africa, the past decade has seen the lives of gay people go "from bad to worse", the report says. More than 50 per cent of African states have taken action to criminalise homosexuality and religious homophobia is rife. The picture is not much brighter in Asia, where 23 countries have made being gay a crime.

Latin America and the Caribbean are also home to many governments with a similar outlook. In Jamaica, sex with another man is described in the statute book as an "abominable crime".

Widney Brown of Amnesty International lists sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe as the regions which give them the greatest concern for gay rights. Ms Brown also warned against Western nations becoming complacent. "The US is the only country in Nato with a prohibition of being openly gay in the military."

Renato Sabbadini, co-secretary general of ILGA, said: "The unworthiness rests entirely on these states, for theirs is the shame of depriving a significant number of their citizens of dignity, respect and the enjoyment of equal rights."

Unlawfully deported: 'Nothing can make up for what I went through'

A gay asylum-seeker from Uganda has been awarded £100,000 in an unprecedented compensation award from the Home Office after it admitted breaking the law by deporting him and putting his life in danger while his case was still pending.

John Bosco Nyombi, who now has leave to remain in the UK, was beaten and bundled on to a plane to Kampala by security staff working for the Home Office in 2008. The Independent on Sunday reported last year that High Court judges ruled his removal had been "manifestly unlawful", obliging the Home Office to bring him back to Britain. The 39-year-old fled to the UK in 2001, because being gay in Uganda can result in life imprisonment. More than one gay inmate has been killed while serving time in Ugandan prison.

Mr Nyombi had an outstanding application for a judicial review on his case when he was sent back. When he tried to resist the team sent to deport him and asked for a lawyer, the British removal officers allegedly dragged him by handcuffs and hit him in the groin and shoulder.

Within moments of his arrival in Kampala, Mr Nyombi was interrogated by border police. He escaped an initial arrest after paying a bribe and spent six months in hiding, twice getting caught and being put into prison where he was beaten by staff and inmates.

Mr Nyombi, who now lives in Portsmouth where he is a care worker, said: "It's really good news, but sometimes it's not about money. Nothing can make up for what I went through, and, despite everything they have offered, they will still not apologise. They think an apology is money but it's not." He plans to give some of the money to the charities that campaigned to bring him back to Britain.

His solicitor, Shamik Dutta of Fisher Meredith, said: "John Bosco Nyombi is one of many innocent victims who have suffered assault and false imprisonment at the hands of our mismanaged immigration system. The unlawful conduct of the Home Office in this case is a stain on our national reputation."

Emily Dugan

  • Guest
    Thomasaikenhead, Thankyou for your considered response. I agree, comparitively speaking the UK is in a far better situation than many other countries and yes we have come a long way from the 1960?s (not that i was around then). Yes, grateful that I live in the UK and not some tyrannical country elsewhere yes of course?.aren?t we all. The umbrage came in your comment: ?How about someone in the homosexual lobbying industry standing up and saying how grateful they are to live in the UK amongst such decent and tolerant fellow citizens?? As I already have said; much of what I have seen and experienced does not indicate decency and tolerance. And to be told that gay people should be grateful to an image you have of UK society, i found a bit patronising.
  • Guest
    Ahh?so the two years of homophobic abuse that I sustained which involved dozens of members of the community joining in the ?fun?. Returning home from work to cries of you ?f***ing dyke?, etc. Throughout which not one person made any intervention to stop the harassment. These were the decent and tolerant fellow citizens? Threatening violence, intimidation and forcing us to leave our home. And this is just one story of many. I think that ?decent and tolerant citizens? are selective as to where they live and as with many other ?social crime? incidents ?decent and tolerant fellow citizens? choose to turn a blind eye much of the time. Please don?t insult the gay community by telling us to be grateful.
  • Realismista
    The gist of your argument is that homosexual sex between men should be criminalised because of the costs to the NHS of health problems associated with it. Quick research indicates that there are some 1,000 cases of anal cancer per year among the whole population of the UK (60,000,000) and 8,000 new cases of HIV. To put this into perspective, there are some 300,000 cases of cancer per year (lung cancer alone kills some 30,000 per year). THere are 400,000 new cases of STDs per year. You argue that homosexual sex acts between men should be criminalised in order to reduce the health costs to the NHS. However, given the figures above, your logic - ie "criminalise activity that leads to disease and costs the NHS money" - should presumably be extended to include all sex acts that lead to STDs generally. Try to imagine what this would actually mean in terms of police resources. Are you perhaps suggesting that an Iranian style police unit be set up to make night raids on people's homes to see whether they are practicising safe sex - of only a certain variety and purely for procreation, no doubt - and haul offenders off to police cells? And, what about those people who conduct sex acts that could lead to disease if done without protection but who are careful to use protection? Would they be covered or exempted from the scope of your proposed sex act laws? Here are a few problems that your proposed criminalisation of homosexual sex acts would likely encounter: -- in singling out only homosexual sex acts it would - as shown by the overall statistics for STDs and cancer - be using a hammer to crack a nut and making only a small dent in overall STD statistics; -- it would not lead to a reduction in the huge number of STDs and cancers associated with unhealthy lifestyle choices in the general population; -- its broad brush nature would result in the criminalisation of sex acts even when they were carried out safely; -- it would require draconian incursions into civil liberties; -- it would require the whole paraphernalia of surveillance and entrapment by the police force; -- it would require a large police budget to mount the operation; -- it would clog up the courts with minor offences meaning that more serious offences were not tackled as quickly; -- it would lead to the criminalisation and demonisation of homosexual men; -- it would not be compassionate but cruel particularly as it would entail the hounding of sick and vulnerable people; -- it would drive the health problems underground rather than reduce them; -- it would lead to civil unrest. Oh, and it would never see the light of day in a democracy once the issues and proposals had been fully aired and debated. Perhaps you are harbouring a hope that the UK will, in 50 years time, be the kind of totalitarian society in which homosexual sex acts - and relationships - are currently criminalised.
  • sickopfstupidity
    "Gay men ...are more likely to suffer from chronic mental health problems (personality disorders, suicide, drug and alcohol problems)" If that is true - and it seems to be a somewhat sweeping assertion - have you ever paused to consider why so many gay men could be so unhappy? Could it perhaps be the pressures of living in a world full of nasty little gay-hating bigots like you?
  • roamingcat
    Homosexuals are born with a tremendous advantage to the rest of humanity. What is intrinsically inherent within the genetic make up and therefore also the psyche of the homosexual is the over abundance of the opposite sexual chromosomes, the X and Y.
    Most homosexual people have grown up under the care of heterosexual parents and some along with siblings who may not share the same sexuality.
    Having the unique ability of being connected to both the X and Y chromosomes, we develop in a totally unique way to our heterosexual counterparts allowing the role of gender to be less defined, therefore a happier brain knowing both gender qualities.
    Your assumptions are worthless, as any proud LGTB person will tell you, if you bothered to ask, that their "homosexuality" is a deep part of their psyche and not solely a definition of who they happen to find sexually attractive and certainly not by a sexual act they may choose to perform.
    In ancient Greece, the doorway to much of our modern thinking, homosexuality was considered an acceptable part of everyday life, a third sex.
    Hermaphroditus, one of their gods born to Hermes and Aphrodite the gods of sexuality, was god(dess) of hermaphrodites and gay men and women.
    With the homosexual free to develop in a society free from ignorance and stigma, you may well see a decrease in the mental problems you profess plague them and see the world gain its true creative potential.
    If you do not want to engage in certain sex acts, then I suggest you simply dont. If you think you know the mind of a homosexual based on your terribly stereotypical outlook, then I suggest getting out more and taking some time and effort to know LGTB people . What is sexually normal to you may be abhorrent to others and I certainly wouldnt define you by a sex act of your choosing.
    To suggest homosexuality is in anyway connected or to be compared to pedophilia shows you are really off the mark with your comments and cruel imagined opinions.
    You will never know the beauty of being homosexual, or even I expect having homosexuals as friends.
    You are condemned to a life of limited prospectives and knowledge. Imagine your life if that was what we as human beings were judged upon.
  • Hi Diana, I totally agree with you regarding race issues, I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against just because of the colour of their skin etc I'm about as Liberal as you can be, but equally I don't believe that the heterosexual community has a solid right to say gay people 'choose' to be gay, after all why would we endure the suffering of people thinking were not normal and face attacks of brutality? there is gay animals in nearly all species not just humans..... Alot of gay people have killed themselves in the past because of the fact they had endless bouts of attacks from people and tried everything to be straight, this still happens today in Africa and the Middle East for example due to the backward homophobic attitudes of the majority. Some gay males for example have always been feminine from being toddlers so how on earth did they know what homosexuality is or even the word straight? or even sexual activity?, a preference to playing with typically female toys for example in boys and the opposite - masculine behaviour from gay females and alot have told their parents that they felt different to other children, some parents even take their kids to clinics and they say they are possibly homosexual or to a lesser extent transsexual. And then came out as gay in their teenage years, so your presumption that all gay people choose to love the same-sex is fundamentally flawed.
  • sickopfstupidity
    "Perhaps some people are born gay but having said that I know many that are gay who became that way due to environmental factors. " You do? You PERSONALLY know gay people who say 'Oh, I wasn't BORN gay; I became gay because of environmental factors'? What were the 'environmental factors' they cite? Do tell; I am genuinely fascinated :o)
  • Hoot_Gibson
    Only a stupid bitch like you would not understand I was referring to illegal immigrants per. se. Go and have a shave
  • I don't believe in discrimination against minorites, gays, anglophiles no one. But we have to establish laws for immigration reform. My ancestors were slaves in the US for hundreds of years and I don't think another group of people should ever experience what they had to endure, but these other groups that think they can arrive undocument, having children to secure citizenship, and all this is in for a rude awakening. Homosexuality is a choice unlike being born brown skin. With that choice comes responsibility. Most people are heterosexual, Most female heterosexuals are mothers, most female heterosexuals choose males to marry and cohabit with like most of the human species. I don't foresee these trends of marriage, adopting heterosexual children, and all the amenities of a heterosexual life being on a broad scale handed over to the homosexual community. Please get over yourselves. Most of you have rich parents that have political connections or you yourselves have great jobs or connections to push your unfulfilled desires on the rest of the world-get over yourselves. Live your life with dignity but don't try to push on people like me. Dope fiends, hookers, alcoholics have rights too but they can't push their lifestyle choices on others.
  • roamingcat
    Can any Homosexual imagine life without prejudice? Most gay men and women growing up in rural towns or villages must move to larger tolerant cities. The very word "gay" has been adapted by the young as a derogatory description for just about anything.
    The rise of religious groups have stunted the progressive nature of the UK and I fear there will never be a safe world for homosexuals as long as religion sets the precedent.
    The removal of church or mosque from state is so important for the causes of LGBT equality. Whilst we have all encountered tolerant people of faith, they are always outnumbered by those who abuse their positions and use the pulpit to spread hatred.
    The imminent arrival of Pope Ratzinger exemplifies the stance of the British government. David Cameron removed the Downing Street online petition against his state visit on 6th June and now we shall all have to contribute financially and allow him a platform to continue his cowardly assault on LGBT people of the world.
    The government have no discriminations whom they take taxes from, yet how they are spent, for example in aiding religious leaders leaves us clueless.
    Criticizing the fanatics publicly is becoming harder to do, as with the case of the Islington Town Hall christian registrar who took the council to court (funded by the Anglican Church), for insisting she carry out her public duty presiding over civil unions of same sex couples which she refused to perform for personal religious beliefs. While these people are choosing their path in life, LGTBs of the world must tread their own carefully.
    What a let down Mandelson proved to be. What we need in governments of the world are proud gay men and women who can fight the cause from higher ground, including the UK and the US, so called lands of the free.
    We are constantly told to respect and understand the customs and beliefs of our fellow citizens, whilst learning that many of these fractions do not even attempt to understand the nature of Homosexuality or the complexities of human biology. The rise in attendance at faith schools should worry us all.
    If homosexuality was taught in schools with social history and science we might begin to make progress. How are we to find full acceptance in a modern society if future generations are taught that ones sexuality determines ones rights to a decent place in it.
  • scantily
    JamesDownling, I just have to totally disagree with your view. What your actually asking is for minorities of society or in this instance gay people to lobotomies themselves to not react to the active, being attacked physically or verbally, or more passively abuse. I just left a shared house where the other people exhibited almost ever form of prejudice there is; they used racial slurs, stereotypes, called people lezzas, homo's, fags, dyke and made up skits about lesbian women wanting to molest them. This made thing extremely difficult for me even though I tried to get on normally and ignore it, i felt at times wrong, abnormal but mostly uncomfortable, i certainly didn't belong in their home. Often I felt angry but i couldn't confront them because they never directly abused me, they just talk about me in a way that degraded me as a human being. these people aren't going to physically attack someone, but where ever they've gone they've made people feel uncomfortable. People will have had self-esteem issue, or felt they couldn't tell others about who they really are because of this acceptable homophobia. It seems more acceptable to be homophobic than it does to be homosexual. While I agree, JamesDowling, you do try to get on, prejudice is looking at you and you'd have to have had a lobotomy for it not to effect you on a human level.
  • ossydave
    James you're talking rubbish. I've spent 56 years as an openly gay man trying to 'get on with my life' and there's always been someone around to to demonstrate how bigoted and vile humans can be to each other.
  • Yes, beenzontoste, those countries are indeed worse than ours at protecting the rights of some of the members of their society. Your cultural relativism does you no favours- I suspect you would be fine with the condemnation of Iran for still sanctioning the horrific practise of stoning people to death, and you possibly even go as far as condemning it yourself. If we were to follow your logic above, what right do we have to demand that Iran stop such barbarity? None. There is a moral standard which exists independently of the jurisdiction you happen to live under.
  • Fair enough. Then we shouldn't support these societies either through international aid. Human Rights are about civilisation and a civil world. I cannot and will not accept homophobia as acceptable wherever it is being perpetrated. There is never any excuse for it, ask all the gay people in those countries that are victim to this nastiness. Do they think that it's ok? In their own country?
  • sickopfstupidity
    "Other cultures, countries, societies, around the world have a totally different concept when it comes to social norms, human rights, and other `western` ideas of a way a normal society functions. ... But we have no right to judge them, in turn we are perfectly able to suggest they have no right judge us either. But, we have to respect that society around the world differs. "

    Moral relativism is the first refuge of political cowards and the intellectually lazy.

    Would you say the same if the focus of discrimination was race, rather than sexuality? Would you condone racism in other cultures with the same wishy-washy appeals to respect cultural diversity?

    Has it ever occured to you that, beyond all the superficial divisions of culture, race, religion and country, the one thing that unifies - or SHOULD unify - all of us is that we are all, first and foremost, HUMAN BEINGS? And I suggest that our most noble moral instincts stem from keeping that fundamental unity in mind; our most sacred HUMAN rights cannot be compromised to accommodate mere CULTURAL differences. Moral relativism be damned; it's time we started to assert some moral ABSOLUTES! And one of those moral absolutes should be the right to freedom from discrimination, prejudice and persecution on the grounds of sexuality.
  • British society didn't `Grant' me anything. I worked hard for it. I argued my point. I suffered the slings and arrows of this oh so tolerant nation and then,after all that I won the fight. Me and millions of others in this country took that right and made it our own and only when the establishment knew the game was up did they repeal some of the most shameful and repressive laws of modern times. This country is only a few years in front of some of the most repellent and repressive regimes that exist today.
  • sickopfstupidity
    "they were granted by the tolerant majority, heterosexual citizens of the UK." Erm, no they weren't; they were voted for by a majority of MPs, which - as you should know - is not the same thing, given the number of occasions when Parliament has passed laws that were deeply unpopular with the electorate (e.g. Council Tax). I am not aware that gay rights have ever been voted on in a public referendum, which is the only accurate way of gauging public opinion. I'm not saying that you are wrong in your contention that the majority of people in the UK support equal rights for gays (and I would certainly like to believe you); it is just that you cannot assert it without more proof, and thereby ascribe to the majority heterosexual population more credit for being gay-friendly than many of them probably deserve (as some of the posts on here unhappily attest...).
  • The freedoms that we gay people enjoy now in Britain have little to do with British tolerance. These freedoms came after decades of protest and hard work against a very homophobic society. Life for gay people is undoubtedly better than it was,but why I should be grateful to the hetereosexual majority?. I and many others had to fight hard over the years to get here and for others to take credit for that is quite ridiculous. Homophobia in other countries can only be perpetuated by force, just as it was in Britain not so long ago. How much longer can British society continue to give overseas aid to those countries that abuse human rights in the name of religion and cultural differences?
  • jamietaylor
    Yes, we do. We require a law that protects us as has been done for the Muslims, for Religious difference, for Sexual Equality.

    I've read the rest of your postings on here - they're glib and lacking in empathy. Everyday in this country young people at school are bullied, castigated and impuned for their sexuality; their lives blighted. Everyday, people are passed over for promotion and moved to one side so that 'family men/women' can have the better jobs. Everyday people who are different to the majority pertaining to their sexuality have to fight a battle for equality and fairness unsupported by the law. It isn't against the law not to employ someone for being Gay as it is if they are a woman or from a racial minority. This is institutionalised homophobia which give back-door permission for discrimination.

    I've had to contend with smug smirking and glib comments from the ignorant all of my life; it hurts. But in your chest pumping you've hit the nail on the head.
  • sickopfstupidity
    I agree with you, Lord_Nose. I too am very familiar with Amsterdam; it is one of my favourite cities, and I have visited it frequently ever since my first trip there many years ago - with a gay group, as it happens, lol! I have also grown concerned about the increasingly stridency and self-confidence of homophobic Muslim immigrants in denouncing the Netherland's large and well-integrated gay community, and the increase in gay hate crime by young Muslims that has even affected ultra-liberal, multicultural, cosmopolitan Amsterdam in recent years. I find it very depressing and quite worrying.

    But I tell you this; if homophobic Muslims in the UK ever gain sufficient political power (possibly through a gradual demographic shift because of the higher birth-rate of Muslims relative to non-Muslims) and attempt to introduce anti-gay legislation here and reverse decades of progress towards equality and acceptance of gay people, then do not expect those gay people to take it lying down. If our democratic process proves itself too easily subverted by extremists, and unable protect the rights of minorities, then it will no longer deserve the respect or allegiance of gay people, and they will take matters into their own hands to ensure their survival. They will storm the gates of Downing Street and burn the Houses of Parliament to the ground before they will let any pro-Muslim, anti-gay government of the future take away their hard-won rights. They will not let a bunch of Muslim fanatics do to gay people in the UK what certain Muslim countries are doing to their own gay populations in the present day. Tens of thousands of gay people died along with the Jews and political dissdents in Hitler's death camps (a fact of which many people are ignorant, or have forgotten). They will not let history repeat itself.

    And if the gay community in the Netherlands suffers much more provocation from anti-gay Muslims, they may well be in the vanguard of the inevitable backlash. It is up to the government and the authorities in the Netherlands, the UK and elsewhere, to heed the warning signs, and take measures now to listen to the concerns of gay people and take action against the extremists. Or they will only have themselves to blame when all hell breaks loose, and there are pitched battles on the streets of European cities that will make the Poll Tax riots look like a tea party. And if you don't think a bunch of angry poofs can ever be any threat to public order, remember the Stonewall riots, and consider the numbers of people that can be mustered for a typical Gay Pride event; only this time they won't be armed with feather boas and whistles...
  • Lord_Nose
    We are not talking here of Daily Mail "middle England" groups who chatter on about it not being like it was in their day. We are looking at a situation far worse.

    I have lived in the gay tolerant Netherlands for many years. Indeed the country has shown tolerance to a great many groups, not just gays. Now however that freedom is under threat as Muslims (yes, let's not mince words here, this is the group I am referring to), particularly in Rotterdam, realise that Dutch culture allows them to assert themselves. Ok you might think, this has also allowed gays to establish thriving communities. However this is about highly extreme views against gays which are allowed to pass unrestricted - and from people who have gained public positions. That is a very worrying sign.

    Holland's most respected gay newspaper De Gay Krant has reported on this. When a city advisor, a professor at the university, starts proclaiming homosexuality is "a disease, a disorder..." you know there's trouble brewing. Further claims keep on coming including from imam Khalil al Moumni, who described gay people as "sick people worse than pigs." He also distributed a leaflet around mosques saying "heads of homosexuals should be cut off and... hung from the highest building in the city."

    Whilst I am not saying all muslims show such hatred, far from it, there are some in influential positions taking advantage of their freedoms. This is why I believe gays should be aware that the "fight" (for gay rights) is not yet over, as in the distant future things could so easily swing back - particularly as immigrant communities such as in Rotterdam actually become the majority - and distaste for homosexuality starts to be expressed in more forthright ways. But let's hope I am wrong. Let's hope real integration happens. And that the tolerance shown to all starts being shown - by all.
  • olympic
    Which of these countries is on the United Kingdom's govt list to receive international aid? They should be taken off the list until they show they can respect human rights - our money - our rules. The governments of civilised countries like Spain and Denmark refuse to donate their respective tax payers' money to these countries - and so should the UK. The EU should also not send EU collective money to these backward dumps.
  • olympic
    Out of interest, how does the UK govt deal with bisexuals? Many will abuse the asylum process by making up lies about their sexuality but some homosexuals actually have children so that is not always indicative of their sexuality. Also sexuality can change - the govt cannot regulate sexuality or the changing of it. I do read a lot about liars who abuse the UK policy of granting asylum - it's another way that genuine asylum seekers are punished for the actions of bogus claimants.
  • Realismista
    I really still don't see why you think that homosexual behaviour should be criminalised. Is your definition of homosexual behaviour purely 'anal sex'? Does this mean that heterosexuals indulging in anal sex would also be criminalised? If not, why not? What about gay couples who live happily together as life partners and whose sex lives largely consist of cuddling and sex acts other than anal sex? Would they be exempt from criminalisation or subject to lesser charges? And, what about lesbians, who constitute 50% of the homosexual population and are not known for indulging in err anal sex? Would they be criminalised too? (I bet you haven't factored lesbians into he equation: men (and it's nearly always men) with your views rarely have). And, would the police be responsible for tracking down homosexuals in night time raids and arresting homosexuals in their own homes like was the case in 1950s England? Would homosexuals be tested medically for signs of anal sex? I think you should answer these questions and be clearer about how and why certain acts should be criminalised so that your suggestions can be properly discussed. I am homosexual but never shy away from candid discussion with those who think homosexuality and homosexual acts are abhorrent and should be criminalised. But, be careful, once people consider what would actually be involved in criminalising and controlling homosexuals - in terms of invasion of civil liberties, the police resources needed (the whole paraphernalia of surveillance and entrapment as existed in the past) and the necessary budgets - you will find that the already small support for such measures among the general population is likely to dwindle further. Still, I look forward to reading your ideas and debating them further with you.
  • It's so sad that this world still crucifies people for who they are. If it was for any other reason than being gay; this country would go to bat for them. When will people stop judging others because they don't have the right, knowledge, or intelligence to judge anyone. If we respect all forms of life, than and only than will you truly be a moral and good person.
  • Because boys learn to make fun of each other at an early age. Young boys also teach each other that they are better than girls, so anything feminine is not as good as anything masculine. This they all learn from observing adults, media, sports and action heroes. Boys learn to get at each other by making accusations that another boy is ?like a girl??and since ?girls kiss boys? then to be gay is to be ?a boy who kisses another boy?. Yechhh! The ultimate put down and threat to any boy?s identity, masculinity and social standing. Young boys are running scared that someone will find a reason to make them an outcast, and if they are branded gay, the entire school will turn against them and make their lives miserable with taunts and name calling. And we all know how boys love finding and picking on other kids. It's fun and funny and makes boys look tough, and no one is going to pick on you if you're the one doing the picking on. So each boy starts their own long campaign, whether consciously or subconsciously, to go against anything that might make them look weak?and this carries over into how they talk, what they wear, what sport they play, and eventually to what they believe, who they vote for, and how they treat people including their own families. Conclusion: Straight Men are paranoid about anything 'gay'.
  • chevydog
    Collinbrown, if you had grown up seeing same-sex couples as an everyday thing,you would be fine with it. Heteros ram their orientation down our throats and we are afraid and hide who we are. However this is gradually improving.
  • rabwallace dislikes answering obvious answers to questions sickofstupidity if you haven't already noticed. So I wouldn't ask him anything too difficult to grasp. He also thinks he has an infinate knowledge of the ins-and-outs of gay psychology too, yet he is terribly inconsistent with answers to questions being asked! Maybe he should be a mindreader or psychologist for his day job, but thinking about it he wouldn't be very good at them :)
  • 'Gareth, if anything in my previous posts has come across as either aggressive or violent I apologise. I'm not sure what kind of a point it is that you are trying to make though. I have a real problem with people's speech being stifled/suppressed and i do not believe that all gay people are born gay. I certainly believe that some are and I believe that others develop (note, not "turn") for many reasons one of which is undoubtedly as a consequence of some of life's experiences. I also have known others that "play" at it.' As I seem to be repeating myself to you..once again I'll say I have a problem too with peoples speech being stifled too I am a human rights worker, so I don't know what your getting at there rabwallace. As I've said I dont agree with your comments and that's free speech or is it only allowed for straight people? it's all about equal rights for gay people and nothing more. Also what do you mean by others 'playing' at it? I guess you mean Graham Norton or Alan Carr. So what? is they hurting you in any way? make you feel less masculine? maybe you'd like a drug dealer next door to you instead. I don't have a problem with straight people playing at it either holding hands in public and what not. 'I'm not your enemy but if you want to look for enemies you might want to look east and west for growing religious movements who have very fixed ideas about gay people and what to do about them.' I'm actively involved with gay people in dangerous situations/and or countries and yes it is worse than here but with my help and many others it will get better but slowly, also if we didn't have the present laws in this country that Labour introduced a few years ago it would also still be 'ok' for gay people to be discriminated against at work and in the public circle in this country. Also you still can't answered my question :)
  • Also rabwallace, I believe straight people are born that way, so I don't see why you should differ on gay people either, why would someone decide to be gay? it doesn't make any sense, not that I'm saying I wish to be straight but if I was born straight I would have a had an easier ride of a life without being assaulted/spat at etc. you quoted ....'I certainly believe that some are and I believe that others develop (note, not "turn") for many reasons one of which is undoubtedly as a consequence of some of life's experiences'. You said your friend had 'TURNED' Lesbian so what you have quoted above is rather irrelevant.
  • JeanErica
    Gareth, rabwallace never lets facts or knowledge get in the way of a bad argument. I've studied these matters for years as a psychologist, grad school psychology instructor (Human Sexuality is my specialty), lecturer and consultant to non-profits, primarily LGBT but others as well. Don't let an armchair psychosociologist like this get to you - it's not worth it.
  • JeanErica
    I've worked with hundreds of LGBT clients as a psychologist; you're sharing an anecdote about one individual (and I'm happy to take you at your word that you haven't misquoted or misunderstood her statement), who my heart goes out to greatly, and while what she says may be true, I sincerely doubt you are qualified to make that determination. So whose analysis is simplistic?
  • JeanErica
    That's a truly ludicrous analogy just for the record. It is NOT a matter of preference, it's the way they are born - no different than ethnicity, race, height, weight, etc. So according to you it's okay to kill or punish people for having relationships with the partners they are biologically determined to be with - and not kill or punish them for 'mental desire' as though that were a bad thing anyway. Go take a cold shower - you're getting really worked up and irrational here.
  • oww please vaginal sex increases risk of cancer, swingers have a higher risk of getting HIV than gay men, its ridiculous to criminalise acts between consenting adults because they increase risk, and besides do homosexuals not also pay for things like the NHS, the higher risks of mental health issues such as higher rate of suicides in gay teens is not because they are gay its because of society.
  • Realismista
    Gay people can love each other as deeply as heterosexuals. I've shared my life with one person for several years and we will be together until death us do part. Although we are very tactile with each other at home we do not hold hands in public as we just don't want to have to deal with the almost inevitable insults it would attract. That's our personal choice. Some others take a different view. There will always be some intolerance and hostility - just look at how religious intolerance has persisted for millenia - but we rarely encounter it these days and it is more than compensated for by those people who just accept us as we are and treat us with the same respect and consideration that they show to others and that we show to them.
  • chevydog
    In addition, Collinbrown, we don't need your approval to be in a loving relationship. You are very biased and whatever 'research' you are doing is tainted by your 'disapproval.' Real research is not biased, it just gets at the truth. Also the assumption that we are repelled by the opposite sex, shows a lot of ignorance.
  • How would you feel if you was spat at or beaten up to the point of near death because you loved your girlfriend for example? but the point is you'll never have that level of knowledge to understand because your straight and not discriminated against. it's like black people feel angered by the way some white people still treat them and the gay issue is no different.
  • JeanErica
    Substitute the words ''black', 'Asian', 'Christian', 'Muslim', 'English', 'Irish', 'Latino', etc., or for that matter 'white', for 'gay' and see how all your nonsense sounds to you - or do you believe none of those groups are or have been discriminated against in the UK or elsewhere?
  • Sorry hasn't everyone had mates who were clearly gay from being tiny little kids..?? "I'm still researching whether Gay people are born gay, gay by choice - or don't know any different because they're still young." Is a bizarre statement. I 'disapprove' of ignorance and bigotry.
  • Realismista
    Oh Dylan, for goodness sake, don't take it all so seriously all the time. My remarks were meant with humour. If you look carefully back down the threads you will see that I took the time and trouble to write a detailed response to your own post in which you stated that you thought that homosexual sex between men should be criminalised in the UK. I gave a reasoned and well-researched response and invited you to discuss the issue further. But you didn't. instead you have kept complaining about not being allowed to express your opinions when, from what I have seen, you have expressed them several times....ad infinitum. You cannot complain when a website deletes one of your comments. I had one of mine deleted yesterday on another Independent thread but I'm not whining about it. Any website has the authority to decide what it regards as acceptable just as any newspaper can decide to not publish a particular letter. That is not generalised 'supression of freedom of expression'. And, I was being half serious: if you believe passionately enough in your own views, there is nothing to stop you establishing your own website and expressing them as much as you like and debating them with like-minded people. Good night and sleep well...I'm out of here now.I don't know where you are but here in the UK it's way past bed time.
  • Realismista
    You are not a genuine believer in freedom of expression and freedom of self determination because you wish to see homosexual acts criminalised in the UK. At the moment we have laws that enable people to love and have sex with adults of their own sex in whatever format suits them. And, nobody is forcing anyone to be homosexual against their will. You, on the other hand, wish to criminalise and control a whole group of people: homosexuals. You are not a supporter of freedom but an advocate of oppression. As your 'advice' to Youssef above shows, you would rather see someone live a dishonest and miserable life, as a fake heterosexual, probably marrying and having children along the way, rather than decide for themselves how they should live. There have been many attempts to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals including electric shock therapy, locking people in mental asylums and the help and guidance of outfits such as "Exodus" in the US which offers practical and spiritual help to those who want to 'convert'. All of them have abysmal records with most homosexuals eventually reverting to type despite the brainwashing, despite the electric shock therapy etc. But, despite this, you continue with your obsession that you know what is right for homosexuals better than they do. I would seriously suggest that you should re-direct some of your efforts towards helping some of the victims of those unscruplous heterosexuals who run the international sex slave trade in women. Or those heterosexual men who rape women or make a nuisance of themselves by kerb crawling for prostitutes. But, do us a favour: leave law-abiding homosexuals to make their own decisions about their lives and stop claiming that there is some kind of massive conspiracy to silence you. You have posted on this thread more than almost anyone else so these claims about your freedom of expression being denied are just nonsense.
  • sickopfstupidity
    "You might not like it, but most gay men and women that I have encountered would rather be straight"

    Then either you can't have met very many, or you simply hang out with a self-selected group of sexual neurotics who - possibly because they share your silly religious beliefs and are therefore deeply conflicted about their sexuality for no good reason, or have been preached at by self-righteous prigs like you and told they are 'sinners', that they are 'dysfunctional' and 'disordered' - feel that the only way they can relieve themselves of the burden of quite unecessary shame and guilt that has been heaped upon them is to deny their true sexual identity and try to change it.

    Few of them will succeed in denying their true identity and going straight, as research has repeatedly shown that sexuality conversion programmes simply do not work. In addition, whatever psychological distress they currently feel because of their inner conflict may well worsen and become pathological, as research has also shown that the subjects of sexuality conversion programmes often develop clinical depression, suicidal thoughts, and even schizophrenia. And all because people like you have convinced them that what they are is unnatural, undesirable, and should be changed. Have you ever paused to consider the misery and suffering that people like you so recklessly and callously cause, even if you think you are being well-meaning?
  • So homosexuality is "diseased or imperfect, broken or deficient". On what grounds? The inability to produce children I suppose. The supposed imperfection of a union which disgusts you. Does that mean that heterosexual pairings which are incapable of bearing children are also unnatural? Surely love is what matters? This is the problem with people spouting off about so-called "natural law"- it so often matches their particular view of the world. For me what is natural is what occurs in nature. Homosexuality has been observed in close to 1500 species, and is well documented in 500 of them. That sounds pretty natural to me. Something which is so frequently flouted in nature surely cannot be a natural "law" at all.
  • sickopfstupidity
    Hahaha! I can't believe that we are being lectured about the definitions of words, about how to think, and about the natural world by someone who is so tragically delusional and irrational that they believe in the Great Invisible Magic Sky Fairy (a.k.a. 'God').

    Religious nutjobs are the very last people who would be qualified to tell other people how to think rationally!

    And here is the proof:

    "Those things which are diseased or imperfect, broken or deficient are simply referred to as "unnatural", for they fail (often through weakness or no fault of their own) to follow the principles behind the natural order."

    So disease and imperfection are 'unnatural'? By that definition, death is unnatural, and yet all living things die. Newsflash, dimwit: disease and death ARE natural, and so is imperfection; very few things in the natural world could be described as 'perfect' in all ways, and it is quite possible to think of how Nature's designs could be improved upon in many cases - e.g. the deletion of vestigial organs, such as the appendix; the redesign of the passageways to our stomachs and lungs so there would be less danger of fatally choking while eating; the rewriting of our genome to eradicate genetic diseases and lengthen our telomeres, thereby increasing the human lifespan, and so on.

    "These behaviours are termed unnatural, disordered or broken (such as someone with a disability, or homosexuality)."

    You rational intellect is obviously disordered and broken, Dylan, because you seem capable of writing the most illogical, ignorant drivel. I would go so far as to state that your mental impairment constitutes a greater disability than you believe homosexuality to be - and, I suspect, equally difficult to change.

    "Nature follows the laws of nature; the natural law."

    A meaningless tautology. But then it is tragically obvious that religious types like you don't understand the pointlessness of such circular definitions, because their entire religion is built upon them.

    "Unnatural things fall short of those laws, or break them. "

    NOTHING can 'break' the laws of nature; if things break, they do so ACCORDING TO the laws of nature. That is because every physical thing in the known universe follows the laws of nature. The only things that can break the laws of nature are the things we imagine and make up in our own heads - such as dragons, ghosts, fairies and gods :o)
  • JohnJ1962
    I agree with your posts Gareth - you seem to be a very clever man who wants the very best for your community - you've almost single handedly taken them all on on here :-), I'm straight and have a gay son he was a little feminine when he was young so as you understand me and my wife (now seperated) was bit worried about him I encouraged countless times more times than I can remember to more male "actvities" but he wouldn't have it, so yes I agree I beleive myself he was born that way, keep up the good work pal the world would be a better place with more people like you. John
  • JohnJ1962
    'Amidst the name calling, hair pulling and scratching that your posts descend into' name calling?? you must be seeing things? what if someone was to say to you rabwallace that there's a possibility that you could be gay in the not too distant future? would you shout them down? possibly or maybe not to their face. Funny also rabwallace considering I'm respected for the work I do, so again your comments are totally unfounded... 'When someone states that gay people are born that way they are plain wrong. Perhaps some people are born gay but having said that I know many that are gay who became that way due to environmental factors'. What a load of nonsense because to be honest you, you could be just saying that rabwallace or 'it's in the water round your way' :), all the gay people that I've talked to in Manchester alone and I'm talking about hundreds not ones I can count on both hands 99.9% have said they personally believe are born that way. So...again...your wrong....and after all of this you still can't answer any questions, your like a washing machine full of spin!
  • sickopfstupidity
    "I have some very good friends who are gay." Lol! Not the classic 'All my friends are gay!' defence! :o) And you criticise other people for using cliches, rab? "Unlike some though when I tell them what my view is they don't start stamping their feet and fretting. We discuss and debate but get on fine. " Yeah, and I'm sure many of them think, 'Poor Rab; he thinks he knows more about our sexuality than we do. Well, let's just humour the poor dear for now, and hope that one day he will realize how wrong he has been, and apologise.' Gay people can be very patient and forgiving when confronted with the ignorance and obtuseness of straight people, and more polite towards them than they probably deserve.
  • Tens of thousands of Christians are killed every year, just for simply trying to live their faith. Only last week, two Christian men were mobbed to death outside a Pakistani court house - the Western media didn't even cover it. Thousands more are killed every year for their race or ethnicity - yet again, hardly a mention in the liberal press (though these crimes against humanity might actually be covered to a greater extent than the mass murder of Christians).

    When it comes to gay men and women being imprisoned for breaking the sexual laws of their respective countries, the figure is so small as to be hardly noticeable (though these instances tend to be highly covered by the Western media). There have been a handful of examples in Africa and the Middle East over the past decade - but we are really talking of hundreds, if not tens. In most countries where homosexual sex is illegal, no action is hardly ever taken, and the law only applies to same sex rape (the recent controversial instances in Iran relate, mostly, to forced buggery).

    There are legitimate reasons for outlawing homosexual sex (which many in the West might find hard to accept) - otherwise most of the world wouldn't be doing it! Half the world's population does not constitute something that is "rogue". In fact, those nations that have liberal attitudes towards homosexuality (UK, US, Israel) tend to be the ones with the bloodiest hands when it comes to global conflict situations...And I can tell you that none of these nations went to Iraq or Afghanistan to save Christians or people of various races!

    We must remember that homosexual sex was illegal in the UK until a few years ago (1967 in England, and much more recently in Scotland and Northern Ireland). Also, whereas no one can help their skin-colour, homosexual persons need not act out on their sexuality - especially if that might hinder their position within society (men and women are able to control their sexual urges, despite what we might think in modern Britain). As for Christians, it is true that they could easily change their faith if they didn't want to be killed in Islamic counties - but dying for one's faith happens to be a choice that many believers are ready to make. Not many wish to die for the right to commit buggery.
  • rabwallace
    The minute I read your "narrow-minded bigotry" line. You are an example of so many others who do nothing to advance your cause but rather hold it back because you lack the intelligence to construct a reasoned argument. Instead you fall back on cliches like the aforementioned which stifle my freedom of speech but let you off of the hook. In your most recent post you refer to your experience with an ex and the name calling that you endured. This would happen in any town in the UK and until the gay rights movement finds someone who can speak to the non-gay majority of this country and convince them that gay behaviour is normal and acceptable then the "Cause" is going nowhere. Don't give up the day job Gareth because that person isn't you.
  • rabwallace
    I think the notion that all people who classify themselves as Gay are born that way is plain daft. What exactly do you mean "She won't just be attracted to women after her ordeal"? the rape happened around 15 years ago and she's been with women ever since. Next time I speak to her though I'll be sure and mention your comments Gareth because you sound like a man who knows. Or at least thinks he does.
  • rabwallace
    Gareth, if anything in my previous posts has come across as either aggressive or violent I apologise. I'm not sure what kind of a point it is that you are trying to make though. I have a real problem with people's speech being stifled/suppressed and i do not believe that all gay people are born gay. I certainly believe that some are and I believe that others develop (note, not "turn") for many reasons one of which is undoubtedly as a consequence of some of life's experiences. I also have known others that "play" at it. Fundamentally though I believe that I have a right to air my opinions without being shouted down because some might not like them. I don't believe in killing gay people for their sexuality nor do I believe in ostracising them but i do believe it wouldn't do any harm if there were some better role models than caricatures like Alan Carr and Graham Norton. I'm not your enemy but if you want to look for enemies you might want to look east and west for growing religious movements who have very fixed ideas about gay people and what to do about them.
  • Oh wonderful, so my reasoned and factual comment is removed, just because it offered a logical argument as to why it might be expedient to criminalise homosexuality (cost to the health services, etc), and it pointed out the inherent dangers involved in anal sex (all these facts were taken from a sexual health website), yet personally abusive comments (above) are allowed to remain! As I believe in free speech, I wouldn't consider flagging any comment on here - unless it was illogically hateful (which mine wasn't). I believe it best to keep comments like giorock's up, so that people may see how irrational and overly emotive his / her response is. It is also quite an arrogant comment, as well as being a rather bizarre one. Firstly, the person involved seeks to make some kind of fun (which is completely lost on me) as regards my name - is this a logical argument against what I had posted? Secondly, giorock asks me not to hide "behind facts and figures" - so facts and figures are to be avoided in rational argument, whilst "compassion" (of which there can be many false examples - including "enabling" or "colluding") is king? Thirdly, I am told that the use of facts and figures is like unto "hiding behinde [sic] mummys [sic] skirt" - though I have my name on the post, whist I can only assume that giorock is a pseudonym? I am then asked to look up the word "sophistication" - which is quite a condescending way of speaking to someone, especially a person who studied the Greek classics and sophists, in the original, at degree level. It might be best to learn how to write simple English sentences, before handing out advice to others. It is a shame that my comment was removed, but it is indicative of a society where truth has been muffled by nonsense; where reason has been shoved out of the way by feelings; and where decent men and women are silenced by so-called "liberals". These are dark times we live in.
  • JeanErica You sound like an evangelical who needs a quote from the Bible to justify everything. I am not going to reference comments on a site such as this - for a PhD thesis, yes; but for simple comments on an opinion piece in the Independent, no! Stop being silly. All the facts I have mentioned are easily available, and if you want to see more, just google the appropriate words. Without going into personal circumstances, I can assure you that I speak from professional experience regarding a lot of what I say.
  • True... Many nations in Africa, where homosexual sex is illegal, seem to be on a par with Britain in the 1950s as regards this issue. The only difference is that Hollywood (shows such as Glee, and other very pro-gay programmes) is being beamed into homes all over the globe, which results in a legally proscriptive but socially tolerant dichotomy. Having met and known people from all over the globe, it seems entirely obvious that most people in countries where "sodomy" is illegal seem to be able to practice any form of sexual behaviour free from harassment - so long as they don't make a song and dance about it. I find it very suspect that so many asylum seekers are coming here claiming to be fleeing from anti-homosexual laws and prejudice when far more homosexuals within the same territory or nation are getting on with their lives practically as freely as many in the West. I am sure that there are parts of Morocco that are more libertine when it comes to homosexuality than many towns in Wales! When the "Supreme Court" (whatever that is!) ruled in favour of two "gay" asylum seekers a few weeks ago, not many papers reported the fact that the government of one nation involved (Cameroon, I think) publicly stated that this man would not have faced prosecution, and that (although technically illegal) there were many out homosexuals living freely within its borders!
  • I had written a rational argument as to why certain jurisdictions would find it prudent to criminalise homosexuality, but my comment was removed. It basically goes along the lines that society is becoming increasingly aware of the fact that men who engage in sex with men (be they homosexual or not) are causing an enormous problem for the ever and overly burdened NHS (and other health services, and the prison / probation services). Anal sex leads to a severe increase in cancer of the anus, as well as serious STIs, and HIV / Aids. One in seven homosexual men in London is HIV+; which is an enormous amount when compared to the general population. Gay men seem to take more risks as regards sex; and are more likely to suffer from chronic mental health problems (personality disorders, suicide, drug and alcohol problems) - all this despite the fact that the laws in this country are very "homofriendly". The same issues do not exist to the same extent in those nations that criminalise homosexual sex. As for your questions relating to who or what should be criminalised - the answer is nothing to do with "sexuality", merely the act. Laws, as I have pointed out previously, deal with acts, not thoughts, or emotions. It might have escaped your notice, but buggery was illegal for heterosexuals in the UK, too. There have never been laws against lesbian sex, as such a thing is hardly a risk, and tends not to cause problems for the health services. Also, lesbianism tends not to be as "popular" as male on male sexual intercourse - probably due to the fact that men have naturally higher sex drives than women, and are prone to high levels of promiscuity. As for the costings...I am quite confident that the decrease in the burden to the health services would outweigh the cost of policing. In fact, knowing how fickle people can be, and how English Law is as solid as sand, I would be very willing to lay a bet that in 50 years time many of the pro-homosexual laws in the UK will have been repealed. Hopefully, this comment will be published, so that we can debate these matters.
  • Derek_M
    Of course there's social on pressure to be heterosexual; that's because the vast majority of people are heterosexual so it's hardly surprising
  • Derek_M
    There may well be but of course as you probably realise you are not comparing like with like. I wasn't making a moral statement merely a statement of the obvious. Also, your figure is plucked out of the air
  • Nice to see that this person seems to consider anal warts as being of more benefit to the human race than babies. What on earth has become of Britain? It's shocking to see how low we have fallen, after only a few years of the secularist experiment.
  • Guest
    Bigotry: Definition:> A person who is bitterly intolerant or prejudice or both, towards others of a differing opinion. Well, that works both ways. A Gay person may disapprove of my stance as strongly as I do of theirs. Are we therefore both bigoted? Or would you concede that 'bigoted' is a somewhat overused word spouted mostly by the Gay community to defend their beliefs and opinions? Surly one is entitled to an opinion without the label of bigot - or do Gay people not see the world that way?
  • WhiteWolf57
    At the risk of sounding totally pro-hetro here, I believe it is within everyone's individule rights to choose their lifestyle. Gay's cannot breed by their own selection. If they have kids, it's by adoption, not the NATURAL act of procreation. Therefore, they illiminate themselves from the gene pool. Personally, I believe that being gay is a personal lifestyle selection, not a natural tendency. "I was born gay" is pure BS!!! You "gays" were born into the NATURAL order of life. I'm cool with YOUR choice of LIFESTYLE. It's your choice! Period. If I seem biased, I am. Am I homophobic...absolutely not. I'm just stating the NATURAL facts. I do have FRIENDS who are legally joined, who are gay. I have no problem with them in their chosen relationship and we have a lot of fun when we go out. They made their choice, and, I leave it at that. We respect them and they know that. We enjoy their company, they know that. We respect everyone, regardless of their lifestyle choices. We enjoy everyone, respect EVERYONE regardless of their lifestyle choices!
  • i am gay and I do not approve of same-sex marriages. I think it's something abominable and shouldn't be allowed. I never did nor will have sexual intercourse with another man: I'm just gonna live my life as normal as I can :). BEING GAY IS NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF !!
  • nothing new about all of this. it has always been wrong, and mostly illegal to practice a sin against God.
  • Well done, Youssef - I congratulate you on your courage, and feel huge compassion for you. It must be difficult, especially in this intolerant age (where the gay agenda is forced upon people), to stick to the truth. Love is nothing if not bound by the truth. There is nothing to be proud about being gay; but there is a lot to be happy about when you know yourself at a deeper lever (not just the shallow level of sexuality), and wish to be the person you were meant to be. It is truly a scandal of the modern age that so many millions of gay men and lesbians really want to change, or become straight - or, at least have help to stop acting on their (what they would consider) "disordered" impulses - and yet NO one will help them. The state, as encountered in the NHS, has become all about social engineering, not actually helping someone achieve what they want. Whenever someone presents themselves at their clinician's wanting help to overcome what they deeply know in their hearts they are not meant to be (i.e. homosexual), they are just told to "accept it", or (like one of the commentators on here) are dismissed as "psychologically unsound"! Can society just turn everything on its head so radically within the space of half a lifetime, and really believe it's own fantasy? Generations have known since the dawn of time that the most fulfilled way of loving and other person in a sexual way is to love a member of the opposite sex. Men and women compliment each other. Anything else is "disordered", or narcissistic. It strikes me as bizarre (and bordering on evil) when someone can present themselves at a doctor's surgery and claim that they should always have been a member of the opposite sex, and are then given all the help needed to become that; yet, when a gay man or woman knows that they will NEVER be happy being that, and that they are mean to be straight, and want to be straight, they are carted off to the loony bin, or derided by so called liberals!!! I have no idea why I bother posting on here, though - as my comments often get removed. It's obvious that the "liberal" press is not free; and the Independent hates independent thought! A bit like Pravda's relationship with the truth! Oh for freedom of speech, and freedom to be what one wants to be!
  • What a shame you seem unable to take this matter seriously, and, like so many others, prefer to resort to shouting down opposition, or making personal comments with little relevance to the subject at hand. Why not engage with the points raised: do you think that gay men and women who would rather be the people they know they are deep down (straight) should be allowed help and support to achieve this, possibly (like those who are transgendered) on the NHS? If not, why not?

    I have no obsession at all with sex: of any variety. Like most people, though, the human condition, and therefore the joys and problems of sex and sexuality, interests me. I am also fascinated at how fascistic so called liberals can be when it comes to the subject of homosexuality, and how those who claim to love reason and logic throw both out of the window in trying to perform mental gymnastics in support of something that so many view as an obvious dysfunction (like most fetishes, or other extraordinary sexualities). We should have a great concern and compassion for those men and women who hate being told "you're gay, accept it" - even when they know that this is contrary to the fundamental structure of their being and personality. I also, on a personal level, feel for those poor men and women who seem caught in a trap of addiction and unhealthy body image, lifestyles, consumerism, and being forced into stereotypes by feeling that they should abandon normal life for the cult of the "gay community".

    One day, hindsight will prove that I had more compassion on these people than those who forced them to become something that is artificial (ie. "gay"; as opposed to someone struggling with same sex attraction).

    As far as your suggestion for a website is concerned. Even though the liberal cultural establishment is against it, many, many men and women are forming groups now to help free themselves from a way of life and a sexual orientation which is alien to them, their culture, their beliefs, and their innate personality. You might not like it, but most gay men and women that I have encountered would rather be straight - please, therefore, give them the chance to realise that this is possible, and very, very human - it is, basically, the way we're meant to be, if it were not for the fact that we live in an imperfect world, and often suffer brokenness.
  • As Freud said, "There is no such thing as joking" Humour can be a very useful way of being nasty. I have often notices that it is also a good defence mechanism, often deployed by the "gay community" (usually in very crass or bitchy ways), in an attempt to shout down the truth, or anything that might be uncomfortable to deal with.
  • rabwallace
    What? why would I accept that 80% of people are "naturally bisexual"? that's as dumb a proposition as that people are born gay. Are murders born or created? paedophiles? I think your line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Its clear to me that most people who are gay have become gay for a reason. Maybe their dad never loved them as a child, maybe they were abused or raped or bullied whatever. I've met, worked with and been friends with many gay people and the one thing they all had in common was that they were damaged in some way and deeply unhappy. So many of them went from one partner to another never finding whatever it was they were looking for. Sad really.
  • rabwallace
    Well Gareth, you've finally cleared something up that great minds have been debating for centuries. Namely, when you get someone like a Jon Venables who commits a series of heinous acts why is he the way he is, is it the way he was born or the way his environment has made him? sociologists and scientists can't agree but perhaps that's because they haven't bothered to consult your undoubted "expertise". As far as you are concerned people are born gay and that's all there is to it; their environment and experiences have had nothing to do with shaping them. Reading your post is like watching someone with alzheimers play darts, you're all over the place without hitting the board. Aren't there some gay people in "dangerous"(your words) situations that you can go and save rather than rant your bigoted and prejudiced nonsense here?
  • JohnJ1962
    You preach your nastiness and lose each time by looks of it, my son is gay and he is one of the nicest people you could ever meet, Im sure I cant say the same about you.
  • Seems to be a good excuse to stay longer. If they've no reason to be here, send them back. We've got enough to worry about here by ourselves, than being over burdened by people who shouldn't be here.
  • JeanErica
    Methinks "Youssef Afifi" is perhaps taking the piss and if not, truly needs help. I'm sure religion and bigotry don't shape such opinions of internalized homophobia at all (and yes, now I'm taking the piss)...
  • sickopfstupidity
    "We don't need parades or holidays because everybody ain't down with it! " Then I guess we don't need anti-racism rallies or Martin Luther King Days, either, eh Diana?
  • sickopfstupidity
    "There is a complete misunderstanding of what is meant by natural and unnatural nowadays. "

    Quite apparently - and the misunderstanding is YOURS, Dylan. What's even worse is that you are attempting to get everyone else on here to adopt your own personal - and incorrect - definitions of the terms 'natural' and 'unnatural', because you realize that your arguments make no sense unless you can dictate what those terms mean. And without being able to use semantic pedantry as a smokescreen, your arguments are revealed for what they really are - groundless assertions based on prejudice and religious dogma.

    Well, sorry, but we don't have to accept YOUR definitions of those terms, and won't allow you to use semantics to cloak your bigotry in some sort of intellectual respectability.

    "I cannot believe that people seem to lack the basic philosophical basis to these various concepts - maybe it's because we're now so materialistic in this nation?"

    Oh, the haughty condescension of the religious! Some of us have a better grasp of the 'basic philosophical basis' (sic - lol!) and the protocols and correct forms of philosophical discourse than you apparently do. And what the hell has materialism got to do with any of this? Oh, I forgot, 'materialism' and 'materialistic' are big boo-words for the religious, aren't they? Except that they don't use them in the standard way, with the standard meanings, but instead they use them to mean a mindset that is anchored in the REAL, MATERIAL world - i.e. a scientific worldview - as opposed to a mindset that is anchored in some imaginary, metaphysical, non-material world - i.e. the religious worldview. And some of them use this devious linguistic slight-of-hand quite deliberately, hoping that the negative connotations of materialism (i.e. consumerism, greed, selfishness, etc.) will rub off on the scientific worldview and taint it through association. Well, once again, sorry, but some of us actually understand what 'materialism' and 'materialistic' mean, and know that they do not mean the same thing as an empirical, scientific outlook. And we are also alert to the way in which the religious deliberately misuse these terms in an attempt to conflate scientific rationalism with selfishness and greed, because they have no other way to attack it. It is dishonest, cowardly and pathetic.

    "It is generally understood that there are several mistakes or mutations within the world - they are obviously contrary to what is meant to be."

    NO - nature has no PURPOSE, no PLAN, and does not operate with any conscious INTENTION. (Of course, religious people just can't get that idea, because they can only see nature as being guided by the hand of the Great Invisible Magic Sky Fairy, who necessarily has purposes, plans and intentions.) There is no such thing as 'meant to be' or 'not meant to be' in nature; everything that happens in nature is natural and inevitable. Whether human beings think of certain things are DESIRABLE or not is a different matter. And this is what you really mean when you try to redefine what 'natural' means - you mean 'desirable' from a human perspective, and specifically from YOUR perspective, of course. So when YOU describe something as 'unnatural' all you are really saying is 'I don't like it!' or 'I don't want it to happen'. It is a VALUE-JUDGEMENT, based on your own perspectives and prejudices, and nothing else.

    "Those things which are diseased or imperfect, broken or deficient are simply referred to as "unnatural", for they fail (often through weakness or no fault of their own) to follow the principles behind the natural order."

    Once again, NO; stop trying to redefine the term 'unnatural' to mean what you WANT it to mean! Disease is NATURAL, because it happens in NATURE as a result of NATURAL causes. It might be undesirable, but that is a VALUE-JUDGEMENT, not a statement about the CAUSATION, ORIGIN or STATISTICAL RARITY or otherwise of disease.

    "These behaviours are termed unnatural, disordered or broken (such as someone with a disability, or homosexuality)."

    No - YOU term these behaviours as unnatural, disordered and broken; but that is just your prejudice, your perspective, your human value-judgement. But stripped of human subjectivity and viewed objectively, there is nothing unnatural, disorderd or broken about them; they just ARE what they ARE.

    "Nature follows the laws of nature; the natural law."

    That is at least the second time you have made that pointless, meaningless tautological assertion. It does not become any more sensible through repetition.

    "Unnatural things fall short of those laws, or break them. "

    Oh, just give up, man! You are a very unconvincing and amateurish philosopher, you cannot use semantics to conceal your prejudice, and all your efforts to assert the supremacy of your dogmatic religious judgements are just the same vacuous sophistry the religious always fall back on, because they are incapable of using rational, logical arguments and empirical evidence to defend their irrational views and metaphysical beliefs.
  • Frankly i'm astounded at the complete ignorance and hatred shown in some of these comments. If these comments were written on the Mail website i would be less surprised. @ Another_Crusader, i feel sorry that you feel the need to spit your vitriol and uneducated opinions at myself and those like me. It's easy to comment anonymously and I doubt very much that you would have the balls to say such things face to face. I do not consider myself a pervert and statements like yours will never change that, i sincerely hope everyone else who has this misfortune of reading your pitiful comment will laugh at it the way i did and not take it at all seriously.
  • Lord_Nose
    Britain prides itself on free speech but that very freedom could in the end take away the hard won rights of gays. I am referring to immigrant groups who equally have rights to representation and to be heard. Many of those voices are saying homosexuality should be made illegal once more. Right now it is of no consequence but the distant future may well be another matter.
  • United Kingdom is exactly responsible for the affairs of the world. They are responsible for the sufferings of gays around the world. Just take the matter of India, other Asian countries, many African countries, every where UK replaced the local rules with Christian Victorian homophobic rules. That continues till now, as most of these countries, including India, cannot go forward in this matter. I believe, UK has to take responsibility and say sorry to all the gays of the world for what it has done to them.
  • Guest
    Perhaps 'repelled' is an inappropriate word. How about, unattracted?
  • Guest
    I'll admit that as a culture, many (myself included) are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns, than holding hands. But why?
  • Guest
    Even though I disapprove of Gay relationships, I equally condemn any act of violence towards someone who is Gay. I'm still researching whether Gay people are born gay, gay by choice - or don't know any different because they're still young. I'm sure, by talking to people like Louise9 (a charming female), that one day, I'll get a little closer to discovering why some people are not attracted to the opposite sex.
  • Guest
    Tell me, do you think the envy that Gay people experience concerning the way straight people are not discriminated against, has the effect of angering Gay people - blinding their sense of logic which ultimately increases their defensiveness when probed about their lifestyles by people like me? Is it the lack of acceptance or, the 'ignorance' of people like me, that incenses you the most?
  • Guest
    I've learnt a lot - even though I've gone in with the kid-gloves removed. However, there is one area that remains very grey to me. The love aspect. Not to be confused with lust. How deeply can Gay people love one-another? Are public displays of affection stifled by the stigma still attached to being Gay?

    Do you believe that society, will one day change? If so, can you predict what the catalyst of change might be? Or, are the odds of actual change, a pipe-dream at best?
  • rabwallace, you cannot just 'decide' to be gay or turn gay...this girl more than likely has a hatred of men after her ordeal but who could blame her?, but she won't just be attracted to women after her ordeal, when did you choose to be straight? Gareth O'Brien LGBT unsilenced
  • dbmetzger
    I came across some video of a gay march in Jerusalem where the marchers did not receive a warm reception from onlookers or police. apparently gays can serve openly in the military but....Raw Video: Gay Pride in Central Jerusalem Thousands of members of Israel's homosexual and lesbian communities and their supporters held a 'Gay Pride' parade through central Jerusalem http://www.newslook.com/videos/235161-raw-video-gay-pride-in-central-jerusalem?autoplay=true
  • Yes I agree aswell John but that's all that counts as 'false gayness' other than that it is natural and not chosen one week then straight the next week!
  • rabwallace you'll find that old studies are the ones that they've failed to agree on and not the more in depth and recent ones, but then again you're stuck in the past anyway arn't you?, also rabwallace convicted murderers and in his case now a peadophile arn't really my level of 'expertise' as you put it to comment on it. also it wouldn't be right for me to comment on individual cases and it wouldn't be right for you to mention him here either it's not about this subject is it?, but then again it's probably your area of expertise like everything else in the world. :)
  • sickopfstupidity
    "Homosexuality is a choice unlike being born brown skin. "

    Raucous buzzer sounds: BZZZZT!

    Game show host: "Sorry, that's wrong; BOTH sexuality AND skin colour are determined at birth. Thanks for playing. Next contestant, please."

    Honestly, dear - given the prejudice and persecution that many homosexual people still face around the world today, do you honestly think that they would CHOOSE to be homosexual if it was a matter of choice?! That's as mad as saying that, in the days of slavery, black Africans CHOSE to be slaves!

    Who would willingly choose a life or an identity that condemned them to childlessness, loneliness, emotional suffering and possibly life-threatening danger (which, unfortunately, is still the case for many homosexuals)? Homosexuals are not masochists, and nor are we stupid. Many of us are highly sensitive, insightful, reflective people, who may also have many gay friends, and who may have done considerable research into the various theories about the determinants of human sexuality in order to answer our questions about our own. So please credit us with knowing certain things about ourselves and our gay friends, such as when and how we first became aware that we were gay, and having an understanding of the causes and origins of our sexuality; these are things that would not typically interest most straight people, so they are unlikely to have given much thought to it, or read much about it. When we say we believe we were born gay, we are not merely 'in denial' about having at sometime made a conscious choice to be gay; we really MEAN it, and the vast majority of psychological and medical research backs us up. On the other hand, there has NEVER, to my knowledge, been any convincing research to support the conjecture that homosexuality is a matter of choice. If you still believe that, however, ask yourself this question: when did you choose to be straight?

    "Please get over yourselves."

    When gay people are being beaten to death on the streets of Jamaica while the police look the other way, when gay people are being sentenced to life imprisonment in Uganda, and when gay people are begin hanged in public squares in Iran, to mention just three obvious examples of our on-going persecution, telling us to just 'get over yourselves' is, frankly, staggeringly insensitive. How would you react if someone told black people who complained about racism to simply 'Get over yourselves'?

    "Most of you have rich parents that have political connections or you yourselves have great jobs "

    Where on Earth do you get that ludicrous stereotype of gay people from? Most gay people are just like straight people in most respects - we do not have richer parents, better political connections or better jobs than typical straight people.

    "Live your life with dignity"

    That's all we WANT to do! And that is what a great many of us are still prevented from doing by ignorant, bigoted straight people who wish to deny us that dignity.

    "but don't try to push on people like me."

    We're are not trying to push anything onto anyone! All we want is to be treated like human beings with the same dignity and freedoms that straight people enjoy. Once again, I find your casual hypocrisy shocking; as a black person, you no doubt feel passionately about racism and the rights of black people. Can demanding fair and equal treatment for black people be dismissed as merely black people 'pushing' themselves on the rest of society?

    How is it that so many black people can care so passionately about their own people suffering racism, and yet care so little about other people suffering other forms of prejudice? Are you incapable of feeling any empathy for others? Are you so selfishly absorbed in black politics and black rights that you simply don't have the time or inclination to care about the plight of other minorities? Are you so wrapped-up in your own sense of injustice and victimhood that you have stopped caring about anyone but yourselves? Can't you see the glaring inconsistency of demanding equal rights for black people, while dismissing similar demands made by other persecuted groups as just them being 'pushy'?

    Was Martin Luther King just a spokesman for a bunch of 'pushy' black people - or was he a man who understood that we should all fight prejudice, in ALL its forms, whether it affects us personally or not? I think he would be shocked and disappointed to read your words; I think he would have hoped that the prejudice black people have suffered throughout history would have made you MORE sympathetic to other groups suffering prejudice, not LESS.

    "Dope fiends, hookers, alcoholics have rights too but they can't push their lifestyle choices on others. "

    So now you are equating gay people with dope fiends, hookers and alcoholics? Nice. That tells us all we need to know about you and your opinions, I think...
  • JohnJ1962
    rabwallace I do agree with you on that not ALL gay people are born that way, some people (small minature majority just done some reaserch) choose to classify themselves as gay due to in some parts probably a mental condition in which they for some reason would rather be gay due to a criminal past, evading people etc but in general it is for medium to serious reasons due to like I said a mental condition, my son on the other hand his preference was already evident before he could even talk properly.
  • sickopfstupidity
    "My goodness, what a rant - especially so by one who claims to be reasoned and rational." One man's 'rant' is another man's passionate rhetoric :o) And I don't 'claim' to be reasoned and rational; I simply AM (certainly compared to unreasonable, irrational types like you). But I doubt that you understand what those terms truly mean, any more than a blind person can understand the term 'blue'. "If fact, I doubt you know what I'm talking about, for I am not referring to the ways the world / universe operates; whereby things that seem "bad" are ordered, eventually, for the common good (as you describe)." I doubt that YOU know what you are talking about, Dylan - I said nothing about 'the common good' in my remarks about the laws of nature; the laws of nature care nothing for the welfare of the majority of human beings (i.e. 'the common good'). "You're talking about the mechanics, the laws of physics and biology - which are not laws, in the strictest sense." Here we go, people; watch how Dylan, like so many religious types, redefines words to suit his own purposes, and condescendly suggests that I have misunderstood him, because I was using the 'wrong' meanings for those words! The laws of nature "are not laws, in the strictest sense"? In WHOSE strictest sense, Dylan? Presumably YOURS? And who appointed you Lexicographer-In-Chief, with the authority to decide the meanings of the words the rest of us use (and to - retrospectively, note - modify the meanings of the words you have used)? "I am talking of the Natural Law;" Ah, now he uses Initials Capitals in an attempt to differentiate HIS meaning of 'natural law' from the one he used previously WITHOUT initial capitals... "the lex naturalis - which forms the basis of our global forms of jurisprudence. It is specific to man, and is a philosophical and moral law, based upon not only empirical evidence (which is what the laws you speak about are based upon, on the whole), but by both what we see and by reason, and logic." 'Lex naturalis'? Ideas do not become more profound or authoritative through being translated into Latin. And jurisprudence is a legal concept, the form and content of which change over time to suit contemporary political agendas and cultural prejudices. Added to which, the concept of 'truth' that operates in courtrooms is an extremely ambiguous and malleable one, open to abuse, and generally means 'whatever lawyers can convince a jury is true'. As such, it is not a very reliable guide. "When Newman was a student at Oxford the LCR he used to frequent was often referred to having the "stench" of logic - it is pure reason, and therefore, pure logic must exist outside the fallible world which we inhabit - that is logical." Newman? Do you mean the famous Cardinal Newman - the same guy the Pope is planning to beatify in his (tax-payer subsidised) 'state visit' to the UK this September? Interesting that you should mention him, given the original topic of this thread and your opinions about it; you do know it is widely suspected that Newman was GAY, don't you? :o) And the 'logic that exists outside the fallible world we inhabit' has a language, called mathematics - something I happen to be quite good at :o) "As you know, the word logic derives from the Greek "logos", which means "reason", and also "word"." Yes, I do know, and I suspect I know rather more about the nature and practice of logic than you do; I've studied mathematical logic, including the work of Kurt Godel, and have even developed my own. "It is, as Plato would argue, something that ultimately has to reside outside one's own self - our logic is more than fallible, therefore illogical concepts always try and force an entry into discussion, and the meditation upon truth." And you have just described jurisprudence, of course, because it is 'human logic' and therefore fallible and unreliable, as I previously stated. "As Aristotle would later say: the material inanimate world has no reason, it exists for those that move; creatures cannot think," He was wrong on that point, of course; even the most anthropocentric of people would have to admit that certain species of non-human higher animals are capable of 'thought' to a certain extent. "they have no faculty of reason, though they have a body and feelings;" That depends what you mean by 'reason'. "a human being is capable of being rational and of understanding complex ideas, of knowing about pure logic, and of coming close to it, we also have sentient bodies and flesh (which ties us to the often chaotic natural order - what you're talking about);" Is this actually going anywhere? Are you going to make a point, or is this just meant to be an exercise in name-dropping various philsophers and quoting their thoughts (rather than offering any of your own). That doesn't prove that you are clever, educated or even well-read, yunno; I could dip into any dictionary of philosophy for half an hour and do a more-or-less verbatim cut-and-paste job; is that what you've done? "he then went on to say that there must be beings of pure spirit / logic or reason, unrestricted by flesh and time / space; ultimately, there is God - who is therefore Pure Logic, and reason..." He had no rational reason to make such an assertion, of course, because metaphysical speculations have no basis in rationality as such, but are expressions of our irrational desires - i.e. wishful thinking. But then, Aristotle, smart though he was, lived over 2000 years ago, and human knowledge and critical thinking have moved on - just a tad - since his day, so he can be forgiven for not getting everything right. If his is the best argument you can offer for the existence of God, then I am somewhat unimpressed, to say the least. "That is the natural order, and law." Erm, sorry, what is? Which bit? All you have done is name and quote a few philosophers, without any apparent connection to your original point (if you had one), and then you just pull a rabbit out of a hat and triumphantly declare "Ta-da! And that is what I meant by natural law!". Do you seriously think that is how to contruct a rational argument? Oh, silly me - of course you do; you are religious, and religious people argue like that all the time, thinking they are being terribly clever just because they can quote a few philosophers - often out of context and quite meaninglessly - and don't actually realize that simply being well-read in the Classics does not necessarily equate with being educated, intelligent and rational; part of constructing a rational argument is to do JOINED UP THINKING and actually CONNECT statements together in such a way as to demonstrate how each one follows from previous ones. The reason religious people don't get this idea is because the mind-virus of faith that has infected their brains has eaten away at their mental faculties like a cancer, destroying their capacity for logic, reason and original thought, and leaving nothing behind but dusty mental bookshelves filled with other people's writings and ideas. "There is more to life than what we see - to use empirical evidence alone, knowing how limited out senses and knowledge are, is the ultimate in being illogical and irrational." It always makes me laugh when religious types pompously try to claim that they have a grander, more encompassing vision of the universe than anyone else, as if their religious beliefs give them some deep insight into hidden realms of reality that are invisble to the rest of us. But you could not be more wrong, Dylan; mathematicians and theoretical physicists, such as myself, spend pretty-much every waking hour inhabiting entire universes of pure, abstract thought, some of which correlates to things in physical reality, most of which does not (but which is no less 'real' because of that). We do not need to be lectured by the religious about the limitations of empirical evidence and human senses; we have built elaborate mathematical theories that demonstrate this (e.g. quantum mechanics, which is as much a construct of abstract pure mathematics as it is a theory of physics). We are not constrained by our human senses or our current experimental and observational capabilities, and happily construct theories like String Theory, M-Theory and quantum cosmology as pure mathematical theories, even though we know that direct empirical confirmation of them may not be obtained for decades - or even centuries - into the future, if at all. YOU should be taking lessons from US about the vast universe of non-physical reality that exists out there, not the other way around. "Your arguments, the words you use (remember that logic is logos - thank you Wittgenstein)" Yeah, yeah - I have read Wittgenstein's 'Tractatus Logico Philosophicus'. Have you? My favourite bit is the very last sentence: "That of which we cannot speak [through lack of direct knowledge] we must pass over in silence [and not pointlessly speculate about]". If only religious types followed that principle, the rest of us wouldn't have to listen to all their specious, metaphysical drivel. "If you think that theists believe in a Fairy in the Sky, then you're being disingenuous." No, I'm being quite serious. That pretty-much IS what they believe in (if one must choose a humorous metaphor), even if they won't admit it. "If you ridicule human thinking (the imagination and "things we make up in our own heads") then you have no reason left." No, I ridicule human NON-thinking, which is what you religious types indulge in because YOU have no reason left (your mind-virus of faith has destroyed it). "If you think you're above all else, all those you deem "stupid" then you're the tragic character - unable to see your own flaws, or argue rationally (with humility). " Let me change one word of that (in capitals) and direct it back at you: "If you think you're above all else, all those you deem "GODLESS" then you're the tragic character - unable to see your own flaws, or argue rationally (with humility). ". Yup, I think that's more accurate. "Belief in God is the most rational thing that man can achieve " No, mathematics and science are the most rational things that man can achieve. Religion comes waaaaaaay down the scale of rationality - somewhere near the very bottom, in fact. But it is very typical of the religious to see that list upside down, with religion at the very top; it's symptomatic of something I've coined 'Cognitive Inversion Syndrome', and it's one of the tragic cognitive impairments associated with religious belief. "- whilst attempting to place human reason on an infallible stage is just laughable. " I never said that human reason is infallible. Most of it - with the possible exception of pure mathematics - certainly isn't, sadly. But, flawed though it can be, it's the best guide we have to truth; on the other hand, revelation - 'truth' experienced through divine revelation - is just about the daftest, most unreliable and potentially dangerous way of ascertaining truth that human beings have ever dreamt up. And because of this, religious people who believe in revealed truth are equally daft, unreliable and potentially dangerous to the rest of us. "I'm afraid that your arguments, based as they are on pure rhetoric and nothing else " Your 'arguments', on the other hand, were based on name-dropping and quoting various philosophers.....and nothing else. Look not at the splinter in another man's eye, but at the plank in your own, mate (to paraphrase your Bible) :o) "Humility is so often the handmaid of wisdom; and wisdom is the daughter of logic." Then I guess as as someone who demonstrates neither humility, wisdom nor logic, you're pretty-much screwed - but I'd already come to that conclusion a long time ago :o)
  • You say there's little time in wasting your breath rabwallace, well haven't you already figured out by now you won't get anywhere with someone as determined as me who as JohnJ1962 says wants the best for my community? So you carry on. I have a busy schedule but I can still comment on here as long as it takes for you do drift away.
  • spriteo2
    i dont know what to believe on here, u all seem to be arguing over nothing computer errors dont help aswell confussssing!!!!!!!!
  • spriteo2
    this happened on the daily mail once it is annoyin
  • Do what John has done rabwallace and head out into the gay community and ask them if they think they are born that way, like Brighton, Manchester, London etc and Im sure you'd get different results to your personal ones. Like John says your all spin, you go round questions but never answer them. Hopefully this reply will work.
  • JohnJ1962
    Must be too many threads and replies overloading the system haha, technology.
  • John can you reply to this comment because it seems the Independent server is having trouble with who it thinks is replying, thanks.
  • JohnJ1962
    Thanks for your nice words John, it's appreciated. I don't know what it's like being a parent but one day I may find out if I adopt etc but again it's appreciated :)
  • rabwallace
    Have I ever once said that gay people can't be nice? its a cliche but I have some very good friends who are gay. Unlike some though when I tell them what my view is they don't start stamping their feet and fretting. We discuss and debate but get on fine.
  • rabwallace
    You need to get a dictionary John if you think Gareth is clever. Good work? what would that be then? people like Gareth with their dogmatic and shuttered perspective will set the gay movement back rather than advance it.
  • rabwallace
    Amidst the name calling, hair pulling and scratching that your posts descend into Gareth let me state clearly(so that not even you can misunderstand) what I believe. All the evidence ever produced suggests that people are a mixture of their genes and their environment. When someone states that gay people are born that way they are plain wrong. Perhaps some people are born gay but having said that I know many that are gay who became that way due to environmental factors. That said I don't believe in persecuting gay people or killing them or ostracising them; somehow we all need to find a way to get on irrespective of our religious beliefs, race or sexual orientation. I'm quite happy to defend my position and debate it with anyone but when its people of Gareth's ilk who basically trot out the same trite and rehashed cliches time after time (read his previous post, its has more holes in it that a Swiss cheese) there's little point in wasting my breath because they are narrow minded souls who have come to believe their own doggerel.
  • red_django
    My overall point was that people have to learn to live and let live. Who is prepared to admit that they are conceited enough to believe all their views should be held above everyone elses? I'm not a Christian but I do believe as long as you are not hurting anybody else your lifestyle is worthy of other peoples respect.
  • Funny also that not many people have 'liked' your posts rabwallace, looks like your not saying something right eh chuck.
  • rabwallace
    Hey Hoot, you've drawn a fair bit of flack with this post but I don't know why; this country is finished. We don't make anything, we're drowning in immigrants who have no interest in our culture or traditions, crime is out of control and lots of us don't even bother to work preferring to sponge off of benefits. Add into that the politicians we elect who serve their parties and themselves before they do anything for us. We're in a bad way. Next time you hear a politician talking about reforming the banks or how the recovery has taken hold take a look around and ask yourself who they are kidding.
  • SOF1946
    Please stop talking.
  • The difference is that you identify yourself as being gay, whereas a transgendered individual would not identify themselves with their biological gender! the two things are incomparable, Dylan. You want to be something different to who you are. They are something different to who they are!
  • SOF1946
    One gets the sense that your "freedom to be what one wants to be" includes jackboots, a ceremonial dagger, and an armband.
  • SOF1946
    Don't you have an explosive vest that you need to get fitted?
  • SOF1946
    One presume that by "God" you mean the Christian deity?
  • SOF1946
    Thanks for the example of pedantry masquerading as reason.
  • SOF1946
    How and why would God create anything imperfect? Since homosexuality occurs in all parts of nature, one must assume it to be a part of the natural order. Significantly, religion does not appear at all in nature.
  • SOF1946
    You would presumably prefer another Srebrenica to another Kosovo?
  • My goodness, what a rant - especially so by one who claims to be reasoned and rational. If fact, I doubt you know what I'm talking about, for I am not referring to the ways the world / universe operates; whereby things that seem "bad" are ordered, eventually, for the common good (as you describe). You're talking about the mechanics, the laws of physics and biology - which are not laws, in the strictest sense...Man, to paraphrase Kant, tends to make patterns (laws) so as to understand the world.

    I am talking of the Natural Law; the lex naturalis - which forms the basis of our global forms of jurisprudence. It is specific to man, and is a philosophical and moral law, based upon not only empirical evidence (which is what the laws you speak about are based upon, on the whole), but by both what we see and by reason, and logic.

    When Newman was a student at Oxford the LCR he used to frequent was often referred to having the "stench" of logic - it is pure reason, and therefore, pure logic must exist outside the fallible world which we inhabit - that is logical. As you know, the word logic derives from the Greek "logos", which means "reason", and also "word". It is, as Plato would argue, something that ultimately has to reside outside one's own self - our logic is more than fallible, therefore illogical concepts always try and force an entry into discussion, and the meditation upon truth. As Aristotle would later say: the material inanimate world has no reason, it exists for those that move; creatures cannot think, they have no faculty of reason, though they have a body and feelings; a human being is capable of being rational and of understanding complex ideas, of knowing about pure logic, and of coming close to it, we also have sentient bodies and flesh (which ties us to the often chaotic natural order - what you're talking about); he then went on to say that there must be beings of pure spirit / logic or reason, unrestricted by flesh and time / space; ultimately, there is God - who is therefore Pure Logic, and reason...That is the natural order, and law. There is more to life than what we see - to use empirical evidence alone, knowing how limited out senses and knowledge are, is the ultimate in being illogical and irrational.

    Your arguments, the words you use (remember that logic is logos - thank you Wittgenstein) just go to show how deeply flawed your ideas are. If you think that theists believe in a Fairy in the Sky, then you're being disingenuous. If you ridicule human thinking (the imagination and "things we make up in our own heads") then you have no reason left. If you think you're above all else, all those you deem "stupid" then you're the tragic character - unable to see your own flaws, or argue rationally (with humility). Belief in God is the most rational thing that man can achieve - whilst attempting to place human reason on an infallible stage is just laughable. I'm afraid that your arguments, based as they are on pure rhetoric and nothing else (falsely claiming something about others you should know to be untrue), are not only illogical, but delusional in the most horrific sense - humility is so often the handmaid of wisdom; and wisdom is the daughter of logic.
  • If I'm going to be direct and forward...the male 'g-spot' is located in the anus (prostate gland), it isn't the testicles or the penis. Look it up.
  • So why do men have a fuck-off sized g-spot on their prostate. Gay sex is the nearest thing men have to experiencing multiple orgasm. I've done both and taking it is 1000000000 times better than the miserable male orgasm.
  • Congratulations, you will die alone, abandoned and miserable, which is the nearest thing to hell i can imagine. Get ready: it's going to be cold, long, horrible, unhappy life.
  • The concept of God is distorted, and confusing for 90 percent of the human species as well of this concept of homophobia-a label attached to people who is not into the concept of a homosexual orientation. Why people can't choose not to accept it ? I don't like jehovah witnesses knocking on my door soliciting support for their belief systems. I treat them kindly and send them on their way-simple as that.
  • A sin against God? who's God? The is no such thing as sin, a devil. Abramhamic version of God-none of this crap. Go outside look around. The architect of all you see in the natural world is unknown and unknowable.
  • You are correct. Lately this has reach a feverishly occupation amongst the liberals who desperately need money and support and an extra dose of courage from any group outside the mainsteam to help fight to ensure human rights for all. But once again this "cult like following" this particular "lifestyle choice" has gained is questionable. I am a woman, a strong woman, thats boyish in my mannerisms subconsciously ( I have been told all my life), its not ladylike to some but I never said I was a lady-I am a woman that will challenge a man without fear and screw his brains out later. I am a women and no man will take my place in another man's arms, I give birth babies from a womb -no man can't do that. I am the girl, the woman, the crone.
  • God, God, God,what God? whose God? God don't have nothing to do with it. You anus is for evacuated feces not a sex organ.
  • You accept the all or none principal too I assume. (LOL). Its more to this biosphere that meets the eye.
  • 1500 species , huh. Species down the food chain, right? There's nothing wrong with who consenting adults love-just keep it to yourselves. We don't need parades or holidays because everybody ain't down with it! Keep it to yourself.
  • There is a complete misunderstanding of what is meant by natural and unnatural nowadays. I cannot believe that people seem to lack the basic philosophical basis to these various concepts - maybe it's because we're now so materialistic in this nation? It is generally understood that there are several mistakes or mutations within the world - they are obviously contrary to what is meant to be. What should be is termed "natural"; as they would comply with the laws of nature - the simple ways of understanding the world around us (i.e. men walk on two legs, men and women create children, and so on). Those things which are diseased or imperfect, broken or deficient are simply referred to as "unnatural", for they fail (often through weakness or no fault of their own) to follow the principles behind the natural order. These behaviours are termed unnatural, disordered or broken (such as someone with a disability, or homosexuality). Nature follows the laws of nature; the natural law. Unnatural things fall short of those laws, or break them.
  • Hoot_Gibson
    It really stuns me, what next persecuted toilet-seat sniffers are allowed to come to the UK and claim asylum?
    When will the lunatics who run the Human Rights Industry (the UK's biggest growth Industry) be put in their own asylum the door locked and the key thrown away so that we ordinary folk can try and assimilate the millions of illegals into our society.
    If we carry on as we are we are guaranteed the English will be a minority in our country in a very short while.
    The aliens bweed like bunny rabbits, fat on the freebies we dole out to them even when they go home with a few thousands smackers to tempt them.
    Problem is their back the next week under a different name and nationality claiming all the benifits they can .
    We are doomed as a distinct nation, a Kosovo in the making where the heartland of the Serbs were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of immigrants, Muslims under Turk domination who then became the majority and have now declared independence from Serbia.
    Today Kosovo, us in the the near future, the Independent states of Londonstan, Birmingham, Bradford, et.al.
    There is no hope for this sad disintegrating country that was England.
  • red_django
    There has been homosexuality since the beginning of civilisation, more gay people are born everyday - how, given this, can it be described as unnatural. People wish their religious views and lifestyle to be respected by others yet are not willing to respect others themselves.
  • VicTheBrit
    Lemme guess... You left school at 16, you live in council flat, you're a chav, you've never been out of the UK. Am I right?
  • beenzontoste
    You are right, but we cannot just ignore the facts that other societies see it diffrently. Why are people so surprisd for example to when westerners are gaoled for drinking in Saudia Arabia.
  • taisha2
    Homosexuality has always been normal and there is no God.
  • beenzontoste
    Yes it has, but this is the here and now, not the way we wish it to be. I think everyone should support Pompey, others beg to differ. In time, maybe views may be influenced and changed, but this is the here and now. And, No i do not condone it, nor accept it,but other cultures are different and that is what i have to accept.
  • sickopfstupidity
    If you accept the idea that 80% of people are actually naturally bisexual, then being 'converted' from a bisexual state, where a girl can have sex with men, to a homosexual state after a bad experience with a man - e.g. abuse or rape - then it makes perfect sense. I have gay male friends who have had sex, and even romantic relationships, with girls in the past, before deciding that it just wasn't them, and deciding they were more attracted to men. Again, this makes sense if you think that they were initially bisexual.
  • Realismista
    "I have no idea why I bother posting on here" A sentiment no doubt shared by those unfortunate enough to plough through your endless witterings. Now, here's an idea: why not set up your own website where you can indulge your unhealthy obsessions about gay sex with other likeminded men 24/7?
  • If people want the countries they're from to be "free and open" like ours (even if we're becoming less free and open by the day), then it's up to them to change the laws in their own lands. Europe has been ravaged by wars and revolts for centuries, that's what has formed our desire to live in relative peace - many of these other nations (in Africa and the Middle East) still need to go through their own struggles - escaping over here will help no-one. As orangiey says, why don't these people go to the nearest free state that's available to them, as is required by international law? The answer: they wouldn't have such a wonderful life in those places! African asylum seekers should seek help in neighbouring African nations. It's become ridiculous that asylum seekers, gay or straight all seem to want to go to Britain, Sweden, Germany, the US and Canada - which, for some bizarre reason, they think are like wonderlands of free money and self-expression. As I said in another comment - there are places in the UK which are far less tolerant towards homosexuals than some of the nations these people are coming from. They should be sent to the Outer Hebrides or Caernarfonshire; we'd soon see them queuing to go back home!
  • sickopfstupidity
    The ignorance, illogicality and naked prejudice of your post would be shocking - if only we hadn't encountered similar so many times before from deranged religious types.

    "whereas no one can help their skin-colour, homosexual persons need not act out on their sexuality"

    Fine. Imagine the tables are turned; suppose the majority of the world was gay, and heterosexual love and sex were outlawed. How long do you think you could resist your romantic and sexual urges, and is it at all reasonable, fair and humane to expect you to do so?

    "As for Christians, it is true that they could easily change their faith if they didn't want to be killed in Islamic counties - but dying for one's faith happens to be a choice that many believers are ready to make."

    Yeah, and they are soooo into that whole 'Christian martyr' ego-trip thing aren't they? They probably think they'll get special treatment in Heaven (har har, if only they knew...) if they 'die for their faith'; maybe they even hope to be immortalized here on Earth by being declared a saint, eh? Oh, the vanity of the religious, always masquerading as humility and self-sacrifice! Haha!

    "Not many wish to die for the right to commit buggery. "

    Prudish, squeamish religious types like you might find the thought of anal sex distasteful (even though, numerically, far more straight people than gay people actually engage in it). But your distaste is as NOTHING compared to the UTTER, STOMACH-CHURNING DISGUST that your smug, self-righteous piety, your breath-taking ignorance and your sheer callous hypocrisy instills in people like me. The stench of your pious bigotry makes my eyes water, and fills me with the urge to VOMIT, quite frankly. Compared to religion-induced stupidity, anal sex is quite inoffensive.
  • There is a time when "self-expression" and the such is self-defeating. If, in the process of being self-expressive, the gay movement has created a false identity, which they seek to impose one anyone who suffers from same sex attraction, then that desire for freedom is actually stifling an other section of the community. We have laws, so that one aspect of society does not overpower another, or the majority. Laws also express common values, and typically indicate the values (the philosophical ideals) that underline that society. Also, absolute freedom and the desire to be "self-expressive" (with little regard for society at large: what is typically identified as narcissistic or egoistic) is self-defeating. Human beings know that limits on behaviour tend to be more freeing than having no limits (a moral anarchy) at all. If one were free to indulge their passions and desires with no apparent consequences, or societal disapproval, then we would become a people mired by complete hedonism, addiction, and selfishness - in other words, we would be less free than those in physical prisons. You're right about the Daily Mail and so on, as I don't believe that the right-leaning press is prone to censoring. Needless to say, asking someone to comment elsewhere is indicative of a fear, or an intolerant attitude. The freedom to say that in some respects it might be better to criminalise homosexuality (and other extraordinary sexualities) is freedom of speech. You know as much as I do that no change in the law will come for at least 50 years, or so (by then the UK will have such a substantial Islamic minority, that it is inevitable that curbs will be imposed in minority sexualities). The law, ultimately, should be a guarantor of freedom, not a promoter of hedonism, selfishness, or false freedom. As for your comments about the criminalising of homosexuality, etc... Firstly, I didn't want to get bogged down in the dissection of minutiae on a comments thread. Secondly, you failed to deal with the fundamental issue (the real costs) of the burden caused not by physical illnesses and behaviours, but by the societal and psychological damage caused by encouraging young men and women to live a ghettoised life, or to identify with a false construct (which the "gay" type is, and has become). When people were just regarded as individuals, with varying sexual problems, etc, things seemed much better - people hardly committed suicide because of their sexuality, or felt different, or became addicted to sex or substances (that's the real cost - the unspoken and massive problem of addiction within the "gay community"). This existential angst amongst homosexuals in the West is a direct result of trying to convince them that they are an ontologically different type of person - whereas, in fact, they're not. Once people stop identifying as gay or whatever (even straight), then the suicide and depression rates in the West will fall dramatically. I refuse to enter this diametric ideal that you have of "homosexuals" are nice cuddly people who just want to get on with their lives, and I should concentrate on evil "heterosexuals" who rape women. Firstly, people are people - we should stop believing in these false beings (gay and straight). Secondly, the generating of a ghettoised minority just for the sake of cultural politics is, in the long run, and in an existential way, far more damaging than actual acts of violence. I think, though, as most rational people should, that you would agree with me on this fundamental point: that people who find themselves attracted to the same sex, yet feel this in incompatible with their being, should be given help to overcome this (as they would see it) "disordered" behaviour? If not, why wouldn't you want to help those people (and I think you'll find that they constitute most sex sex attracted persons) achieve their full potential, and express themselves in a way they want to? Has the gay right movement actually become a way of trampling on the wishes of many homosexuals - those who do not want to go down the path of this artificial and very modern "gay identity"?
  • No, liberals in the Western world identify men and women who are attracted to the same sex as gay - even if that person doe not want to be gay, or does not identify as being gay. They want help to change, to become straight, and identify themselves as straight - not gay. They are straight, and know it deep down - a transgendered person could be completely mad, yet most of the Western world now just accept that if they tell us they are different to what they appear to be (and effectively are) then that's it. If someone who has same sex attraction knowns that this is a disability for them, something that is completely at odds with the rest of their entire being (sexuality is not ontological; it does not constitute a different class of people, or the entirety of one's being), and then seek help to change (which is what a transgendered person has to do - they have to have an artificial operation, a modern procedure, to physically mutate their bodies), they are denied this fundamental right. The whole concept of homosexuality is relatively new, even within the field of psychology (which, in itself is less than 150 years old). The notion didn't become current until the Second World War. The myth of the "gay", an artificial construct, which bases itself around a false "community" (a ghetto of bars, drinking, drugs, promiscuity, narcissism, body dysmorphia, and often misogyny), is as valid a way if being as is joining a cult where everyone acts like members of Star Trek. The construct of the gay myth is so false that many, many men who happen to be attracted to the same sex cannot in all conscience (and because they love the truth and reason) allow themselves to be moulded in the image of something so ghettoises, false, and narcissistic. Your comment just shows how society has become blinded to the truth, and intolerant to simple reason.
  • timspooner
    I have first hand knowledge of an Iranian asylum seeker who was granted Residency on the basis that he was gay. Then it turned out that he had been married and had many girlfriends and in fact now had a new wife. So, in order to beat a reversal of his residency, next stop was to say he is now a Christian and cannot return to Iran. I wonder what other excuse he could come up with.
  • rabwallace
    I know a girl who defines herself as Lesbian but if you spend any time with her she'll tell you that she wasn't born that way but turned that way after being raped by a guy. While I would completely agree that its wrong to punish someone for their sexual orientation i think your analysis is somewhat simplistic.
  • Clearly has not studied modern Darwinism which has as a part of it kin selection not just sexual selection, research the gay uncle hypothesis in which it occurs as it is beneficial for the group or family unit in terms of providing more protection and resources for the children of their relatives. Or there is another explanation on the genetic side that while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may give some reproductive advantage in heterosexuals who carry them which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population as well as in the much in the same way as sickle cell survives because having one of the genes helps reduce the severity of malaria but having two sickle cell genes makes you ill. Seen as homosexual behaviour has been documented in hundreds of species there must be some benefit to it or it simply would not exist.
  • sickopfstupidity
    "after only a few years of the secularist experiment. " Aha! So, you show your true colours at last, Dylan! You're a believer in the the Great Invisible Magic Sky Fairy (i.e. 'God'), eh? Well, well, we'd never have guessed. It's so UNUSUAL to find deeply religious people with incredibly ignorant, irrational and bigoted attitudes towards gay people, after all... :o)
  • JeanErica
    And Christians have killed millions as well over the centuries - gay or otherwise - and many of them lead anti-gay groups in contemporary times all over the world (including the USA and UK), so don't get all high and mighty or self-pitying on me. And I'd love to see your references for your statistics. Does "homosexual sex" being illegal in the UK until a few (43?) years ago make it okay? Is that what you're saying? Sad really. And the so-called liberal press are the first and generally only ones to point out any issues of injustice as they're the only ones not profiting from death.
  • Hey, there are gods and gods. The Christian one is slightly better than Zeus or Odin and their friends, but no one can read the Old Testament and think He is perfect. Nor can one think that of Allah after reading the Quran and the Hadith. The Buddhist one is basically you (or me) and no one argues that we are perfect - only that we might get that way after a lifetime or 500. Why worship such flawed deities? It gives one something to do on off days and, since a whole bunch of others do, it also gives one a ready-made community. How much do you want from a god, for god's sake?
  • roamingcat
    Another_Crusader- "Genetials were evolved for one reason, procreation"
    A glimpse into the mind of a creationist who evolved genitals, (or genetials, in Another_Crusaders case) who's unimaginative, ignorant views are sad, uninformed and a brilliant example of the insulting behavior that certain heterosexual's (or hetrosexuals) enjoy flaunting whilst exhibiting far too much interest in an article about Homosexuality which is being thrusted into his/her face.
    My many heterosexual friends enjoy healthy uninhibited sex lives without the sole purpose of procreating if taken to the fancy.
    Keep other crusades to yourself or in the confines of your religion and spare the readers your grim outlook on life.
  • Tribeless
    "...these people are referred to in any good dictionary as perverts..." Oh, and dictionaries have the final word, do they? You'd best refer to a good one as I'd hate to see the condition of your "Genetials". "Genetials were evolved for one reason, procreation." And which came first; Genetials or procreation? Or was it clay and a rib? I forget, so much utter rubbish is fed to us... which leads me to imagine the contents of your cranium resembling a knickerbocker glory.
  • sickopfstupidity
    Unfortunately I did not read your original post before it was removed, though I think I can deduce the gist of it from your and others' subsequent comments. And I am bound to ask - if you studied Greek and the classics at university, were you ever introduced to that wonderful Greek invention - logic?

    Because when you say "my reasoned and factual comment is removed, just because it offered a logical argument as to why it might be expedient to criminalise homosexuality (cost to the health services, etc), and it pointed out the inherent dangers involved in anal sex (all these facts were taken from a sexual health website)", what you are basically arguing for is that certain people and behaviours should be criminalized simply because they cost the health service money.

    Well, consider the logical extension of that principle to other types of people and behaviour: Should we criminalize obese people who over-eat? Should we make tobacco illegal and criminalize smokers? Should we make alcohol illegal and criminalize drinkers? Should we criminalize anyone with a medical condition who doesn't follow doctor's orders and take their medicine? And what about people who engage in dangerous sports and run the risk of getting injuries that would cost the health service money to treat - rugby players, mountain climbers, sky-divers, scuba divers, snowboarders, etc.? In fact, if we criminalized any sport that carried a risk of injury, that would probably be the end of the Olympics, for a start!

    For godsake man - people can even injure themselves doing something as gentle as gardening! Should we criminalize that too, just because it might cost the health service money?

    Clearly not. All these are absurd suggestions, of course. But that is because your original premise - that certain people and certain behaviours should be criminlized just to save the health service money - is equally absurd.

    Do try to do some joined-up thinking, and follow your ideas to their logical conclusion once in a while, eh?

    Oh, and by the way, it is my understanding that many STRAIGHT people also enjoy anal sex - if not habitually, then at least occasionally. So, by your logic, you would be criminalizing straight people, too. (And, FYI, not all gay people enjoy, or even engage in, anal sex.)

    I love it when someone's poorly though-out argument blows up in their face :o) But I wholeheartedly support you in your comments about free speech; there should be no censorship on these forums, and no comments, no matter how stupid or offensive, should be removed. Because it's always always entertaining to watch stupid, offensive people make fools of themselves in public :o) And the best way to avoid making a fool of oneself is to not to write stupid, offensive posts in the first place, of course; as the saying goes, 'Better to say nothing, and be thought a fool, then to speak up, and remove all doubt.'
  • taisha2
    Coward.
  • 'A Gay person may disapprove of my stance as strongly as I do of theirs.' colinbrown you will find that is a bigoted comment coming from you. Also many gay people envy straight people for their sense of not being discriminated against for loving someone, so why should gay people disapprove of your sexuality? we have no hatred towards your sexuality just your misguided views.
  • That is really sad... You are born who you are... You love who you love... As long as both parties are consenting adults then you shouldn't feel shame for living the life you were born to live
  • taisha2
    Gays don't usually breed, knucklehead.
  • acidpen
    .....plenty of heterosexual couple indulge in exactly the same think, don't like it till you've tried it. Personally i think these anti-gay arguments are utter nonsense, i myself was homophobic as a younger person, why? probably because i hadn't found the confidence not to be. There are plenty of activities humans partake in that involve using an object for a job that it wasn't initially intended, thats the beauty of being human. Only this afternoon i used a tablemat to make a sushi roll- not what it was intended for- but the result was utter pleasure! we are all freaks. Well...im not, but all the rest of you are.
  • sickopfstupidity
    If God is incompetent and imperfect, then - to quote Epicurus - why call him 'God'? And why worship such a flawed deity?
  • It is not so much that it is wrong, but that it is stupid. Like making left-handedness or albinism illegal. So 70 countries, at least, run by idiot simpletons with no understanding of science. If they made "gay" behaviour (public drag, affected swisihiness) illegal, there could be a disagreement, but understanding. There is no point in even talking if facts of nature do not hold sway.
  • you an idiot!
  • you are a sin against humanity! if you have nothing to say then shut the hell up.
  • how disappointing for the thousands of people out there who were all waiting for your approval, Youssef! or your hand, for that matter!
  • ajwimble
    If your god really does advocate homophobia, then it is not worthy of worship.
  • red_django
    To all the people with comments similar to these - perhaps you'd be better off at the Daily Mail. Its all so tired and predictable - at the end of the day people still have the right to live no matter where there come from, just remember its pure chance that you can sit on your high horse in your free, open country.
  • Arounf 75% percent of adults in the US are overweight. Is there social pressure to be overweight too?
  • orangiey
    There are PLENTY of countries besides the UK that accept gay people, why don't they go there?? BENEFITS!!! (or in those countries, lack of them).
  • giorock
    Facts and figures will break my bones but names will never hurt me......

    Crusader, I think you should get a life! What planet are you from - a reject from Uranus? Must be, because that can only describe your dribble. I'm too bored to counter argue your rats and stats stance. History (do you know what that is?) will tell you that sexual contact regardless has killed more heterosexuals than any act of buggery. Besides when why is homosexuality equated with anal sex? To me, by definition it's the capacity to love someone of the same sex. Besides, nature leaves undefined the object of sexual desire. All that is imposed by society. I'd rather go for nature......it's more natural. Nature tells us that if you want to have kiddies you pock it into a female...... pregnt pause....... But if you have the capacity to love, then nature says hey JUST DO IT! Sorry uranus rejected you. Why did you pick earth? Or we are just unlucky that wind brought you here??? I understand the wind in uranus can be quite strong. Pity for us!
  • Would be nice if you had listed those countries to avoid and boycott.
  • jtjsrch
    LIAR! If you really are gay YOU are the one who needs to be deported and pay the consequences in your "Home" country, wherever that may may be.
  • fuck u and your imaginary god you twat
  • chevydog
    Collinbrown, why do you care about this topic?
  • donotgivein
    Youssef you're right having sex with another man is as abominable. The fact that you say that you won't do it tells me you realize that being a Homosexual doesn't make you extraordinarily bad person, but rather homosexually is in fact a sin like any other, it's just like murdering someone to telling lies what people need to understand is that it is not a sin to be tempted; it's giving in to temptation and committing that act, whatever it is, is when Gods' law is broken and that is the most important law to be mind-full of.
  • Unfortunately this is the sad truth, but also there is hidden suffering amongst it all which needs to be urgently addressed. Gay 'issues' in the UK for instance are still a sensitive subject with alot more people than is realised, In my town me and my ex partner was walking down the high street just holding hands and the people who stopped, stared, pointed, shouted vulgar things and moving their children away so they could not see us was typical of a large proportion of Britain still stuck in a sense of 'gay people are not normal' Gareth O'Brien LGBT unsilenced
  • chevydog
    Collinbrown, I don`t think you know anything about research. I think you are just fishing around for information. No harm in that, but don`t call it `research`until you find out how to do it properly.
  • Of course it's nothing new, thanks to d-bags like you pushing the rest of us around and saying ~*~God is telling us~*~ where NOT to stick our hoohoos. Why are people so adamant about believing someone that has never talked to them in their lifetime?
  • Derek_M
    Leaving aside the unrealistic idea that, pre-colonisation, these places were a utopia of tolerance and freedom, most of these countries have been independent for 50 to 60 years. The UK certainly doesn't force them to retain old laws (quite the reverse) so your basic assumption is just nonsense
  • Dude, you need some help man
  • Gareth, mate, why waste breath on some of the comments here... i read about two, three, and i frankly find the lack of common sense quite puzzling... still the old chestnut about gay people chosing to be gay... yeah right. choosing to be spat at (as you said) or beaten up, disowned by ur family, killed in a homophobic attack, discriminated, having ur rights as a human being not recognized, being sent to prison or even executed by your own state who considers you a criminal for the only reason of having a different sexual orientation. Mate, i checked your site, well done, keep up the good work and do check mine and let me know what you think. invitation is open to anyone else who has lgbt rights at heart. all the best Carmelo www.bohoco.net ps im also on facebook as bo.ho.co.
  • vlnprimo
    sounds like you have some serious psychological issues... do the world a favor and get some psychiatric help.
  • collinbrown, many gay couples can and have been in loving relationships for nearly all their adult lives with the same person. Just the as with straight people. you quoted 'How deeply do commited Gay people love one-another?' we are all different people just as there are differences in straight people's attitude to commitment. A couple of gay couples I know have been together for longer than 40 years, so it just depends.
  • chevydog
    Depends where you live. I live near the second largest gay populated city in the world (Vancouver) and we aren`t particularly safe even in numbers. How deeply do we love one another.. heavy sigh... very deeply.... and I am always monagamous.
  • I don't understand the focus on Africa here. It is generally a tolerant culture and for every gay like Mr. Nyombi there are hundreds of others who do their stuff without harassment.

    It occasionally becomes a political issue, as we have seen in Uganda and Zimbabwe. This can happen if the leaders have other issues with the West, and wish to underscore homosexuality as another sign of white "interference" to bolster their confrontation. But it is hardly ever a standalone issue.

    African churches oppose homosexuality, but so do churches everywhere! By and large, gayness in Africa attracts giggles and little else. I know, I live there.

    The Muslim heartland countries may be a different story. With an issue as sensitive as this, the media should show discretion.
  • One more coward who doesn't want to listen or answer questions that they dislike. I've answered everything you've asked, I'm a nice person and that's all I can do.
  • thomasaikenhead
    Mike Krumsets, those freedoms have EVERYTHING to do with British tolerance because after campaigning, they were granted by the tolerant majority, heterosexual citizens of the UK. Compare that with the other countries in the world where being gay remains a crime and openly gay people are persecuted by both individuals and the state. The whole article is about the seventy states where being gay is still a crime! What makes you and those who campaigned for gay rights any different that those who campaigned for the rights of working-class men to vote, or for the Suffragette women who wanted to be granted equality under the law, or the Roman Catholics who campaigned to the discrimination against them enshrined in law to be removed? All of the above are further examples of how the majority of the UK citizens responded to lobbying by such 'minorities' to either grant them equality or remove institutional discrimination against them. I still contend that, despite all its faults, the UK remains a remarkably dynamic, open and tolerant society.
  • beenzontoste
    Whilst i agree that the sexuality of an individual in the United Kingdon is no-ones concern but the individual concerned, in other words is no-one elses business to become involved in. Other cultures, countries, societies, around the world have a totally different concept when it comes to social norms, human rights, and other `western` ideas of a way a normal society functions. We produce reports which suggest those societies are somehow less just because of their behaviour toward sexuality. But we have no right to judge them, in turn we are perfectly able to suggest they have no right judge us either. But, we have to respect that society around the world differs. In some places there is tolerance of the variety in sexuality and others there is not. Similarly wearing a Pompey football shirt in Southampton on a football match day, or even ANY day may be perceived as a risky act liable to elicit a negative response / reaction. There are some places or societies we should avoid as they are too different to ours and too many compromises of our own value set required. Its just a shame we are unable to grasp that fact and continue to try to project our values on others, and in turn, they on us do the same. I dont see why we should adopt a missionary zeal to converting the world to accept our perception of sexuality, encompassing all parts of the spectrum.
  • rabwallace
    Which question would that be Gareth? actually don't bother telling me because this will be my final post to you. No, that's not what I mean by playing at it and no, Alan Carr is not an example of someone playing at it either. Alan Carr making me feel less masculine? a drug dealer living next door to me? eh? your arguments are all over the place mate and not worth my time. You don't so much wind me up as irritate me because you are as prejudiced as the very people that you so obviously hate. Ta ta.
  • chevydog
    This does not make sense, Thomasgoodey. Just being in a same-gender hang out has been enough to be arrested and charged with a crime.
  • chevydog
    How could I have chosen lesbianism at age three when I had no idea such a thing existed.
  • chevydog
    I knew I was different at age three. Always been attracted to the same-sex. Why are you assuming that I am repelled by men. I am indifferent toward them. Are you repelled by the same-sex?
  • I agree Highbury JD, if he disapproved of ignorance and bigotry he wouldn't be condemning gay relationships.
  • chevydog
    You are very sex-obsessed. For me, being a lesbian is about love, for chrissake. I am so tired of ignorant comments like yours. And sex is part of a healthy relationship.
  • I think boys and girls are both beautiful and sexual.
  • 'You are an example of so many others who do nothing to advance your cause but rather hold it back because you lack the intelligence to construct a reasoned argument. Instead you fall back on cliches like the aforementioned which stifle my freedom of speech but let you off of the hook.' In your most recent post you refer to your experience with an ex and the name calling that you endured. This would happen in any town in the UK and until the gay rights movement finds someone who can speak to the non-gay majority of this country and convince them that gay behaviour is normal and acceptable then the "Cause" is going nowhere.' I'm not stifling your free speech but it's just the same as me saying straight people are not born that way, simple as, but still you cannot answer my question you just get more wound up rabwallace, I've confronted many people like you and they do the same thing, act puzzled as if to say why are you asking me that , I'm straight! then get aggressive and/or violent also a few have agreed saying yes I have a solid point. My day job puts people like yourself on the spot like I have evidently done, I ask questions but I never seem to get the answers! :)
  • Possibly if you clarified that she'd been with women for 15+ years it would be easier to communicate with you, also to note is maybe she has always been a Lesbian, I have friends who have been with men up until their in their 30s and even 40s but they mentioned that they never felt completly comfortable. So tell me...again...when did you choose to be straight? Gareth O'Brien LGBT unsilenced
  • Also I find your quote narrow-minded bigotry 'I think the notion that all people who classify themselves as Gay are born that way is plain daft' Now if you said that to 99.9% of gay people you would get the same reaction as what I've said. Funny how you seem to avoid my question aswell.
  • teobesta
    Great article but why always the single story about Africa (of war, injustice and disease)? After all, if I were to quote even Wikipedia: "South Africa's post-apartheid constitution was the first in the world to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and on 1 December 2006 South Africa made history by becoming the fifth country in the world, and the first in Africa to legalise same-sex marriage. It was also the only republic to provide non-heterosexual individuals with exactly the same rights, such as adoption and military service, as heterosexual individuals, until it was joined by Argentina on July 15, 2010."
  • JamesDowling
    How can anyone tell if you are gay? If you make it very obvious then in certain situations you will be at risk. In the same way as if I spoke loudly in my RP accent in a Northern city at pub closing time. Discretion is the better part of valour. What are you proposing exactly? How will it ever work with the moronic, tattooed scumbags that exist in large numbers in the UK?
  • scampy1
    And how did this guy god make such a huge mistake when creating these deviants in his own image?
  • Another_Crusader
    I am fed up with homosexualism being thrust in our faces all the time. If two people of the same sex want to be together as friends then that seems to be a natural thing to do but to take it further into a full blown sexual relationship is totally unnatural. Quite rightly these people are referred to in any good dictionary as perverts as that is what they are. What can be natural about a man having sex with another man and a woman having sex with another woman? Genetials were evolved for one reason, procreation. The only reason that laws have been made to protect these perverts is because there are so many homosexuals in parliament, the media and other government circles who seem to have far too much influence in lawmaking. If things carry on as they are there will be more same sex couples adopting and fostering children than there are hetrosexual couples. It is an outrage. The fact that many countries still outlaw homosexual activity only means that this country, because of its soft tolerance, will be home to the perverts of the world because we do not exclude them and will not send them back.
  • Sexuality is not like race or ethnicity. In fact, many people experience all types of sexual attraction and difficulties during their lifetimes, whereas it is rarely the case that one might be white one day, and black the next! It is false, and disingenuous, to equate sexuality with eye colour or race. There is no conclusive proof as to the origins of homosexual behaviour, but it seems highly unlikely that it is genetic - for the evolution might have dealt with it by now (it has no "Darwinian" benefit). A new study, recently published in New Zealand (based on questioning 13,000 homosexuals) has revealed that the common link in sexual dysfunction (homosexual, fetishes, paedophilia, etc) is severe trauma in early childhood. It has also recently been shown that past studies on homosexuality (Kinsey et al) overestimated the percentage of homosexuals within the average population (he claimed it was about 10%). It seems that, in reality, about 2% of the male population is attracted to the same sex - it is less than this in the female population. This is about the same proportion as suffer from paedophilic tendencies. The vast majority, the "norm", is heterosexual. thomasgoody is absolutely right, people aren't punished for "being gay" - namely because such a construct is a false one, and is only recognised in the West (most people on the planet have no idea what a "gay person" would be - this "type" was invented about 40 years ago). Any punishment of sexual offenders is always based on actions, not desires. A good example of how the law applies in this regard would be the way we punish child sex offenders - they are sent to prison for doing something, not for thinking / fantasising about it. We really need to stop categorising people by their perceived "sexuality" - if we did this, lots of the problems suffered by homosexuals (in the West), such as suicide and mental health problems, would go away - for they wouldn't be encouraged to define themselves as "other", or feel compelled to live in false, or stereotypical, ghettos.
  • Tribeless
    Any negative replies to your negative posting may, in part, have been due the the fact that sexually transmitted diseases and physical/health complications are not the sole preserve of homosexuals. No matter how many statistics you bandy about. And as long as we continue to breed and evolve, such life complications will forever accompany us. If reference to "professional experience" is an indication of your practicing medicine then you should be struck-off immediately.
  • gondorplace
    And, Manchester is by far the most cosmopolitan place around here :)
  • JeanErica
    It was doggerel when he said it and it's doggerel when you say it. These absurd abstract notions serve nobody but haters like yourself. Fine with me - STOP categorising people by their sexuality - let's see how that goes over with the world at large. We don't define ourselves as 'other' - people like you do by suggesting gays and lesbians are doing something wrong. And you need to look at the links I posted above (if they've appeared yet) for a bit of education. And again, I'd love to see your references for your 'statistics'. I've read studies that suggest the G&L populations is more realistically between 10-20% and if you add bisexual and transgender individuals I think you'll begin to realize how absurd and hateful your comments really are. Try walking a mile in the shoes of a gay man - then come back and tell us what it was like. I rest my case.
  • I am not self-pitying in the slightest, and would gladly die for my faith. I doubt very much that there are many in the gay lobby who would die for the right to commit buggery. The only "martyr" that homosexuals seem to bandy about, Oscar Wilde, rejected his sexual misdemeanour's, and embraced the Catholic faith on his death-bed. I have no idea where you have got the notion that Christians have "killed millions" from? Who were these millions, and who were these Christians? It would be interesting to know. Are we talking of killing in cold blood, or executing on behalf of the State? Are we getting overly emotional about European history? If so, it might be worth noting that atheists have been the bloodiest murderers int he shortest amount of time (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and do on). As a proportion, how many of these murderers (religious or atheist) were homosexual? There have only been "gay" people for the past 40 years; before then there was no such thing - but do you honsetly believe that those attracted to the same sex weren't sometimes leading the bloodbaths? A little further into the past, 150 years or so, there was no concept of "homosexuality". People were people, and that was it. It is interesting to note, though, that the most barbaric dictators in history were often troubled by personality disorders, as well as homosexual tendencies (Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Nero, Hadrian, Saladin, Richard Cour de Lion, Frederick Barbarossa, Hitler, Montezuma, Ernst Rohm, and so on, and on...). The British State has executed thousands for their faith, Protestant or Catholic. During the past 2,000 years, though, the number of homosexuals put on trial (and executed) for sodomy wouldn't even reach 50. As for homosexual sex being illegal in the UK until recently (43 years is nothing), all I was pointing out was that it's a bit cheap for British citizens to be condemning other societies for doing something that we've only just stopped doing ourselves. By the way, the law was only repealed in 1981 and 1982 in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively (29 and 28 years). These laws were only changed (regardless of whether or not we agree with the changes) due to internal campaigning pressure on the Governments of the time. If the UK is suddenly going to become a safe-haven for those who claim it is difficult for them to have homosexual sex in their home countries, how on earth do they / we expect the laws to change there? These people need to take responsibility for their own destinies. In the UK in 1967 a man could have faced life in prison for homosexual sex - a far more severe punishment than that faced by the odd homosexual in Africa or the Middle East in today's world. The liberal press only highlight issues of "injustice" which are in line with their own world-view (often socialist, secular and materialistic). They give far too much time to the relatively inconsequential issue of sodomy laws, whilst ignoring the state sponsored murder of racial and faith based minorities. When poor Christians are killed in the slums of Egypt or Pakistan not a word is mentioned, or the report might make it look like "factional fighting". However, when a couple of drunken men are imprisoned in an African country, for illegally contracting an invalid marriage, then all hell breaks loose! As for "leading anti-gay groups" - where is the immorality, or the injustice in doing something that most people in the world consider to be highly moral and noble (i.e. the protecting of the traditional family)?
  • JeanErica
    Just how do you justify the statement that your comment wasn't hateful? Factual? Unless it had references included, I sincerely doubt anything you say at this point. Bigotry is bigotry no matter how well (poorly) disguised.
  • JeanErica
    You're patently wrong. There is more and more proof each day that it is in fact just like race, ethnicity, etc. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx http://www.healthyminds.org/More-Info-For/GayLesbianBisexuals.aspx And for you god-botherers, there's this. Remember - there is no, absolutely no empirical proof of the existence of god or any religions concepts and more people have died because of religious persecution than any other cause over the centuries. So before you start trying to argue facts, start looking at yourself instead of others. http://opentoyou.org/resources/images/toplead.pdf
  • Great piece. Some lamentably ignorant comments BTL.
  • DeSwiss
    So why is it that these 70+ countries are allowed to remain in the UN? Isn't the UN supposed to be a forum for civilized countries? What is the point of the UN's having a Declaration of Human Rights, if no one has to adhere to it? http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
  • JeanErica
    Okay try this all you cretins posting on here: substitute the words: Christian, Black, Jew, White, Arab, UK citizen (2 words), Muslim, Asian, etc. for: Gay and then tell me the other countries wouldn't be bombing the heck out of all these truly rogue nations? Go ahead then!
  • thomasgoodey
    The headline is a blatant lie. No country in the world penalizes a person for "being gay", whatever that means. Presumably it means that the person WOULD IDEALLY PREFER having sexual relations with another person of the same sex. What they penalize people for, is actually doing such an act. It is the act that is criminal, not the mental desire. As yet, they can't get into your brain and figure out what you want to do! An analogy would be that you can want to rob a bank as much as you like, and you can think about doing so without penalty; but if you actually do it, you are subject to the rigors of the law.
  • voxpop2012
    Can someone please remind me what century we are living in? Quite frankly there is so much hatred in our crazy human world that to find love no matter where is a big bonus..
  • snotcricket
    "Softer than a shandy-drinking southerner!" I say that's a bit strong.
  • snotcricket
    "Yes, we do. We require a law that protects us as has been done for the Muslims, for Religious difference, for Sexual Equality"

    No we don't, just the one law of equality, thus all those who make a living (in particular politicians) in ensuring laws for sections of society encourages bitterness & inequality have no agenda.

    By the by always check the post that is replied to before you offer your impression.

    Further you're alive & presumably in reasonable health many people are not, the ill the frail & many whose situation guarantees no 'empathy' from those who feel they & they alone deserve empathy & somehow have the ear of the politico.

    Every day kids are bullied at school for all sorts of reasons its not the fact the homosexual is bullied it is the fact kids are bullied.

    Every day people who were not born into the world of private education & yet are intellectually equal are passed over for promotion etc, the professions are overly subscribed with such with working class people not given the opportunity, indeed many of the professions have probably more homosexuals (latent or otherwise) within than they have working class.

    Get over it.
  • I had to correct your definition of ?Pervert?, as your definition was ?wrong?. The correct definition of pervert is: ?Verb (used with object) ? To turn away from the right course or to turn to an improper use; misapply. To change to what is unnatural or abnormal. Gay sex can be described as a perversion as is sheep shagging.
  • acidpen
    this is worth watching, gives one an idea of what people in some countries are up against. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w&feature=player_embedded
  • Boanerges9
    Would that homosexuals, of whichever gender, just disappeared from view and became like the rest of the population, just 'people; for there is far too much pandering in the media to their 'cause', which does them no favours, and is likely to be counterproductive to that cause in merely advertising the fact that they are 'different', ie not like 'ordinary' people.
  • scampy1
    A male placing his reproductive organ into the waste pipe of another male is OK?
  • chevydog
    Another_Crusader, you have no idea about this topic. Perverts are people who force someone to do something they don't want to do. Being gay or lesbian does not fit this definition. As for who is ramming things in people's faces, I see heteros ramming their sexual orientation everywhere. How many same-sex kisses have you seen on television, versus hetero kisses? Heteros flaunt their sexual orientation everywhere. Lots of gay couples are even afraid to hold hands because they could be beaten or killed. People who are secure with their sexual orientation just don't care what someone else is doing. You are very insecure to say such ignorant things. If you are not gay yourself, you have a gay or lesbian relative who is paranoid of coming out to you. (assuming you have at least ten relatives, because the stat is one in ten) You might want to learn that anyone who is gay or lesbian is just experiencing a variation of human sexuality, if you are interested in learning the truth.
  • giorock
    scampy1, your own waste pipe talks well for you. Can I suggest you put a lid on it so the rest of us don't smell your breath? I assume you have the intelligence to read this, but then I'm an optomist at heart- so don't disapoint us.
  • scampy1
    You mean buggery is not a problem for you?
  • scampy1
    How many more public toilets will need to be built to cope with this cottaging explosion which will be funded by British tax payers? Importing huge numbers of homosexuals will also increase the spread and cost to the health service of HIV AIDS?
  • giorock: buggery..."as long as they're not harming anyone" That old chestnut! Well, they are harming themselves and others, as it is well known that frequent anal sex is associated with hemorrhoids, anal prolapse, leakage, ano-rectal pain and ulcers and fissures. It also causes a greater risk of developing STDs, and HIV / Aids than vaginal sex. About 70 - 90% of homosexuals are infected with the virus (HPV) that causes anal warts, which is the single biggest factor in the development of anal cancer. Along with the other problems that many homosexuals seem to be at higher risk of developing (ie. drug and alcohol dependency, suicidal behaviour, mental illness, etc), the cost to society at large, both financially and (more importantly) socially, is extremely problematic. The financial burden that results from the extra health care needed for the average homosexual seems to provide quite an argument for the criminalisation of this type of behaviour. It is also interesting to note that homosexuals in the (liberal) West tend to be more prone to illness related to their condition (physical and mental) than those who live in countries where buggery (and other same sex practices) are illegal.
  • BrunoDiderot
    Gotta love the hilarious attempts of the homophobes to dream up all sorts of "medical" reasons why homosexuality should be illegal. Why not just stick with the religious crap-arguments, boys ? . . . There really is no reason to post here and make yourselves look foolish. Widdo boys: Get a life. Now ... go download some porno like you usually do.
  • Tribeless
    Oh, those old chestnuts, Dylan. I see where you're coming from. But you do have to weigh those homosexualist negatives against the most prevalent and damaging disease heterosexuals spread... Babies!
  • Tribeless
    Yes, and we all know the sexual proclivities of people who go trolling.
  • Not a problem. God made us in his own image, so he screws up just as often as we do. Either that, or his image making was totally incompetent.
  • giorock
    Dylan, or is it `dill' for short? See tmy above comment it also applies to your view (such as it is). If I can be bold enought to make a suggestion, try not to constantly hide behind `facts and figures'- it's a bit like hiding behinde mummys skirt. Be a man and start thinking a little with your heart. You'll be surprised how `compassion' might make you a wiser man. Look up the word `sophistication'...you'll know what I mean.
  • Being gay does not on its own improve your chances of asylum in the UK. It is only now a factor in the overall application. Of course people will lie to get asylum,no more now than before. What about all the straights who come here, have children and we have to foot the bill? As for bisexuals, well I'm in two minds about them.
  • giorock
    mattahari, thanks for the clarification re the inernet troll. I shall not be `sucked in' in future! In terms of your statement prey tell, what can be better than `acceptance'? Surely it is better than `tolerance'? Laws can change things but rarely do they change people's attitudes.........Talking of which, even with homo-sexual politics as you call it, things are moving. Rome was not built in one day and I cannot see homo sexual Politics accelerating.......... Frankly, I'd rather see the homo political effort go to those countries who are homophobic and discriminate in the way the aarticle suggests. Sanctions????
  • No acceptance is not enough. World domination is next...ha ha ha ha .......With me as supreme (gay) leader.....
  • woden1809
    Would you also define being black at a bus stop in Eltham as risky behaviour?
  • Yes thats right. It's ok. So,what would you say to a man that does this to a woman? And since most people are not gay that means straights doing it more than gays. Oh dear Scampy. Your argument is getting fishier by the minute.
  • giorock
    Buggery a problem? I try not to judge how people decide to enjoy themselves. As long as they are not harming anyone........it's fools like you who are the real bummers!
  • mattahari
    Scampy is a just an internet troll - anyone can take that line - what is more interesting though is what happens next to homo-sexual politics I mean acceptance is one thing but is that enough.....
  • roamingcat
    by skipping adolescence and puberty and then leaving these creations to make families from one seed. Eating the evil apple also known as knowledge probably didn't help matters either. We should all strive for ignorance for true salvation?
  • roamingcat
    Might I suggest "KamaSutra for beginners"?
  • snotcricket
    And perhaps you require something for one section of society that will be never offered to any part of said society.
  • snotcricket
    Which makes it difficult for the transvestite.
  • snotcricket
    Only from KFC
  • snotcricket
    I don't know anyone who cares about sexuality etc but as you live it I'll acknowledge your experience of what you say.
  • snotcricket
    "if I spoke loudly in my RP accent in a Northern city" I doubt anyone would either notice or bother - could you be a bit of snob & proud of it?
  • snotcricket
    Also, your figure is plucked out of the air Hope it weren't mine? its dropping out quicker than its cut, still at least I'm saving money in these economically challenged times.
  • kawasakiman
    Humans are inherently drawn to similarity, like sheep. If you're different for any reason, you will always find prejudice. This will never change.
  • thomasaikenhead
    Apologies if my response appeared patronising, I did not express myself well. Of course I did not intend to imply that people should be grateful simply because they are no longer sent to prison, beaten, abused or discriminated against just for their sexual orientation or lifestyle. I do feel that things have improved greatly in the UK and that is a reflection of the values and perceptions of the British public There is still a great deal to be done to improve matters further and I feel that the response of Claire Balding over such a minor slight does serve to trivialise the issue and obscure the very real discrimination that people like yourself have experienced. "?All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men (or women) do nothing". It is deeply disappointing to hear that when you were abused that not a single person spoke out and I do hope that you have found peace, security and happiness in your new home.
  • thomasaikenhead
    I have been to Manchester and seen a sign outside a hairdressing salon that promised a treatment that would make a woman's hair; "Softer than a shandy-drinking southerner!"
  • JamesDowling
    Some people want to perceive themselves as victims because of their ethnic or other group. If you go looking for prejudice you will find it. If you just get on with your life then it is rarely a problem. You will never construct a nation where everybody has total unquestioning acceptance of everybody else (unless lobotomy becomes compulsory).
  • gondorplace
    British society, or BBC society? Things are different on the ground. Mind you, this blog attracts people from middle class; check out the readership of The Sun - and compare the numbers.
  • scampy1
    And what will happen when UK is full of homosexuals from around the world? Why not find these people a country for themselves like a country was found for Jews?
  • "And what will happen when UK is full of homosexuals from around the world?" Why, they'll go around converting everyone, of course. Because that's how they function. You dick.
  • gondorplace
    Do you live in the south?
  • altthought
    In a free and tolerant society homophobia must not be tolerated whatever its degree.
  • Leigh1940
    Firstly, people typically come to Britain because they admire and want those types of freedoms that their own countries lack. Will you please give examples of immigrant groups that argue that gays should not have rights? I haven't studied it, but I'm sure you will find some purely British groups that argue for lack of gay rights too. Secondly, that's the benefit of something like a constitution that protects basic rights and that cannot be changed unless a huge majority wants it changed.
  • thomasaikenhead
    animal1,

    I would not wish to doubt or deny your experiences for a second, I accept that many people from all walks of life in the UK experience prejudice and intolerance.

    My point was that compared to how things were in, for instance, 1960, things in this country have improved greatly. Compared to homosexuals in other countries today, life in the UK is a better place to live than almost any other country in the world.

    The original issue was the reference to a 'dyke on a bike' which I personally think is simply a piece of lazy journalism that reflects far more on AA Gill than Claire Balding. As the Sydney Gay Pride event traditionally opens with the lesbian motor cycles group 'Dykes on Bikes' leading the parade, it is surprising that his comment provoked Claire Balding to take such umbrage.

    I am fascinated by your observation that if the gay community were to reflect on the changes in their situation with regard to the recent past in the UK and the position of homosexuals in other countries in 2010, the very notion that they might see an improvement and could acknowledge that fact is an 'insult'?

    Seeing the very positive changes that have taken place in the UK where the vast majority of the population, who are heterosexual, and may even not agree with homosexuals or wish to condone their behaviour, STILL elected politicians who decriminalized homosexuality.

    This was followed by other laws to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, many professional and voluntary societies adopting their rules to ensure equal rights for homosexuals and so forth.

    This seems to indicate an underlying respect and consideration of homosexuals and a firm belief that whatever personal views people might have, that the homosexual community were entitled to the same rights and protection of law as all other citizens.

    Where you see insult, I see British society accepting and embracing such differences in sexuality as a positive thing that is all too infrequently noted, let alone acknowledged.
  • scampy1
    It's gonna cut the population down a bit?
  • thomasaikenhead
    "But homophobia remains a scar on Britain's social landscape." Utter rubbish, the UK is one of the most tolerant and open countries in the world and homosexuals in the UK enjoy great tolerance and freedom and this is backed by the legal system. There may well still be individuals incidents of prejudice, but then people of colour or religion also experience the same thing. That is not a 'scar on the social landscape'. How about someone in the homosexual lobbying industry standing up and saying how grateful they are to live in the UK amongst such decent and tolerant fellow citizens?

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date